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 indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it explains that providing a token establishes a connection, and that no args returns a login link. It does not contradict annotations. However, it could further disclose that the tool does not perform any destructive actions, but the annotations already cover that.
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 paragraph of moderate length, but it is dense with actionable instructions. It is somewhat long but every sentence provides value, explaining both permanent and session-only login methods. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it is not bloated.
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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main usage patterns well. It includes the auth flow, both login methods, and the meaning of arguments. However, it could benefit from stating what happens after successful authentication (e.g., what the agent can do next), but this is a minor gap.
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 one optional parameter 'token' with no description. The description explains that 'token' should be a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, and that omitting it returns a link. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, despite the schema having 0% coverage. The semantics are clear and well-addressed.
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 the user by logging in and obtaining a token. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing on authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents. However, the purpose is somewhat embedded in a broader set of instructions, which slightly reduces clarity.
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 provides explicit usage scenarios: logging in, copying token, adding it to config for permanent access, or pasting it for session-only. It also explains when to call with no args to get the link. This clearly guides the agent on when and how to use the tool, distinguishing it from alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.