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 useful behavioral context beyond annotations: explains session-only vs permanent non-expiring access and what happens when called with token or no args. Does not contradict annotations and covers the main auth nuances.
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 dense single paragraph without filler. Each sentence carries operational value. Could be split into bullets for readability, but there's no unnecessary content.
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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow: browser login, token capture, permanent config vs session, and no-arg behavior. It doesn't explicitly mention errors or return value format, but that is not essential for this tool's primary use.
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 input schema has a single string token and no descriptions. The description compensates by specifying that token is a JWT pasted from the browser and that calling with no args returns for the login link.
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 that the tool performs login/authentication for the MCP.AI server for IDE agents, with concrete steps: log in via browser, copy an access token, and either use it as a header or pass it as a parameter.
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 gives explicit, actionable context: permanent access via header config vs session-only login using the token parameter or no arguments to get a link. It doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'connect', but the workflows are clearly described.
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 are clearly distinct: authenticate handles login, connect checks status, marketplace manages MCP catalog, report_bug handles feedback, show_version and toolkit_info are informational. The only potential confusion is between authenticate and connect, but their descriptions clarify different purposes. The domain-specific tool (sefaz_sc_nfce_consultar) is distinct from the generic platform tools.
The naming is a mix: some tools use simple verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), others use noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool is a long compound name (sefaz_sc_nfce_consultar). The style is consistent in using lowercase with underscores, but the grammatical pattern is not uniform, mixing imperative verbs and descriptive nouns.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server is titled 'SEFAZ SC: NFC-e' yet only one tool (sefaz_sc_nfce_consultar) relates to that domain. The other six tools are generic MCP platform management utilities that seem out of place for a domain-specific server, making the count inappropriate for the stated purpose.
The domain surface is severely incomplete: only one consultation operation for NFC-e, with no coverage for other likely operations (e.g., authorization, cancellation, listing). The remaining tools are unrelated to the domain, so the server does not provide meaningful breadth for its stated purpose. This will likely cause agent failures when broader NFC-e functionality is expected.