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 discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: permanent vs session-only login, token format (JWT), and the config header mechanism. It explains that no args returns the link, while token arg sets a session. This adds meaningful context beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations.
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 moderately sized, front-loaded with the core auth flow, and logically organized with 'Best' and 'Or' for the two modes. Each sentence adds distinct value, though the opening phrase 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' could be tightened.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the auth flow, both authentication modes, token usage, and configuration steps. It does not explain response formatting or error cases, but these are secondary for this auth-focused tool.
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 carries the full burden for explaining the token parameter. It specifies the token is a JWT to be pasted and differentiates between passing token vs no args. This gives operational meaning beyond the bare schema field.
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 function: authenticating IDE agents via browser login and token exchange. It provides two specific modes (permanent config header vs session-only token) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on authentication.
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?
The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header...' vs 'Or paste it here for a session-only login', along with calling patterns for token and no-args. It lacks explicit mention of when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for agent selection.
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 clearly distinct roles: authentication, connection status, marketplace catalog, bug reporting, version, toolkit state, and the actual NFC-e consultation. However, 'authenticate' and 'connect' both deal with connection setup, and 'marketplace' can overlap with 'toolkit_info' regarding installed tools.
Names are readable but inconsistent: some are bare verbs ('authenticate', 'connect'), some are nouns ('marketplace', 'toolkit_info'), some are verb_noun ('report_bug', 'show_version'), and the domain tool uses a mixed-language verb ('sefaz_pb_nfce_consultar'). No single naming convention is followed.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the server is top-heavy: only one tool directly serves the SEFAZ PB NFC-e domain, while the other six are generic platform utilities. This makes the tool count slightly more than needed for a single-purpose server, but it is not excessive.
The domain is NFC-e tax consultation, and the single consultation tool covers the core query need. There are no additional domain operations like different query types or document management, but the description suggests a focused read-only consultation service. The generic tools do not address domain-specific workflow gaps.