MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token. Best: add it to this server's config as a header Authorization: Bearer <token> for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login: call with { token: "" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond the annotations: it reveals the browser-based flow, the return of a login link when no args are given, and the distinction between permanent and session-scoped authentication. It does not contradict the annotations (idempotentHint true) and provides useful behavioral detail, though it omits potential error cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is informative but somewhat run-on, bundling multiple instructions into a single paragraph. The front-loading of 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' and the browser login step is good, but the sentence structure could be more organized for faster parsing. Still, every part contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and one optional parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: the two auth modes, how to obtain the link, and how to use the token. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it does not detail the response on success or failure beyond the link.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT pasted from the browser and that omitting the token triggers a link response. This gives the single parameter clear semantic meaning beyond just its type and optionality.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to authenticate the MCP server for IDE agents via browser login and token. It distinguishes this from siblings by providing concrete instructions for the authentication flow and mentions the permanent config option, which is specific to this tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly explains when to use the config header (permanent) versus the session token (session-only), and when to call with or without the token argument. This is clear, actionable guidance that helps the agent decide the appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection status, and `marketplace` duplicates `report_bug` and includes list/status capabilities that overlap with both. The monolithic `marketplace` tool makes it hard for an agent to decide whether to call it directly or use the more specific tools.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: simple verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), verb_noun (`report_bug`, `show_version`), a bare noun (`marketplace`), a long snake_case domain name (`scr_bacen_detalhado_consultar`), and a noun phrase (`toolkit_info`). The mixed conventions and variable lengths make the set feel ad hoc.
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range and not overwhelming. However, only one tool maps to the server's stated SCR domain; the rest are generic platform utilities. While each earns a place, the count feels slightly disproportionate for a server whose name suggests a focused SCR service.
The core SCR detail consultation is fully covered by the single domain tool, and platform-level tools handle authentication, connection status, bug reporting, versioning, and toolkit state. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated tool to list available reference months), but there are no dead ends for the primary workflows.