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?
Annotations declare it is non-read-only and idempotent, but the description adds crucial context: browser login, JWT token, permanence vs session, and the generation of a link when no args are given. It doesn't detail error handling or storage side effects, but given the annotation coverage, the added specifics are above the baseline.
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 a single, compact paragraph that gets straight to the point, starting with the core flow. It is somewhat dense but every sentence contributes meaningful guidance. A few words could be cut, but it is efficient.
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 lack of an output schema, the description explains enough about the expected behavior (link vs token) to guide an agent. It does not cover errors or invalid tokens, but for a straightforward authentication tool, it is reasonably complete.
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?
The schema has only a bare 'token' field with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT pasted by the user, and that no args triggers link generation. This adds vital meaning beyond the 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 states the tool authenticates IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining a token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing solely on the authentication flow, naming the specific actions (log in, copy token) and two modes (config or session). No other sibling shares this purpose.
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?
Explicit guidance is given: the 'Best' flow (add to config for permanent access) and an alternative (paste token for session-only). It also explains when to call with no arguments to obtain the link. This clearly instructs when and how to use the tool.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info, and the SEFAZ consulter). However, connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection/status information, and marketplace is a broad catch-all that could be confused with other tools for capability discovery.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are single lowercase words (authenticate, connect, marketplace), while others use snake_case (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). The domain-specific tool (sefaz_df_certidao_debitos_consultar) uses a verbose, different convention, breaking any predictable pattern.
With 7 tools, the count is not inherently excessive, but for a server named 'SEFAZ DF: Certidão Negativa de Débitos', only one tool is relevant to that domain. The other six are generic platform tools, making the count feel inflated and scoped poorly relative to its stated purpose.
The domain-specific capability is limited to a single consultation tool, with no supporting operations (e.g., listing previous certificates, validating status, or handling edge cases). The generic platform tools don't contribute to domain coverage, leaving the set incomplete for a dedicated SEFAZ certificate server.