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?
Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: describes the browser login flow, permanent vs session-only behavior, and that no args returns a link. Annotations like idempotentHint are complemented rather than contradicted.
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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core action, but the phrasing is slightly run-on and mixes user instructions with tool behavior. Overall every sentence contributes useful information.
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?
For a simple one-parameter authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the main scenarios: browser login, permanent configuration, session-only token, and the no-args link flow. It does not describe response details or error cases, but those are less critical here.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single 'token' parameter. It explains that token is a JWT, that it can be omitted to request a login link, and how it is passed after the user pastes it—far exceeding the bare schema.
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 identifies the tool as an authentication mechanism for MCP.AI IDE agents, explaining the browser login/token workflow. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the authentication/token purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with the 'connect' sibling.
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?
Provides clear usage guidance: permanent config via Authorization header vs session-only login by pasting a token, and explains when to call with no args to get a login link. It gives practical alternatives but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of a sibling.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace search, bug reporting, certificate query, version info, and toolkit state. No two tools overlap in function, so an agent can unambiguously select the right one.
Tool names are inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and a long snake_case with verb at the end (sefaz_ce_cert_regulariedade_consultar). There is no predictable naming pattern across the set.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the count is misleading: six of the seven are generic MCP platform utilities, while only one is specific to the server's stated SEFAZ CE purpose. This makes the tool set feel bloated for a domain-specific server and under-scoped for the platform's broader capabilities.
For the stated purpose of querying SEFAZ CE certificates, the single consultation tool is sufficient and no dead ends exist. Minor gaps include lack of a separate way to check credit balance or manage certificates, but these are handled indirectly through the marketplace and toolkit_info tools, so agents can work around them.