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 reveals two behavioral modes (permanent vs. session) and states that calling with no args returns a link. It also notes the token is a JWT and mentions the Authorization header. Annotations indicate idempotent=true, and the description does not contradict this; instead, it adds useful context about side effects (creating a connection/login).
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 run-on paragraph that mixes configuration advice with API usage. While it contains essential information, it could be better structured with clear bullets or steps and more front-loaded purpose.
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?
The description covers the primary use cases and parameter semantics, but it omits what the tool returns when a token is provided (success/error/response format). Since there is no output schema, that information is missing. It also doesn't mention potential errors or side effects beyond login.
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 only provides a token property with no description, but the description explains that token is a JWT for session login, and that omitting it returns a link. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
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 handling authentication for IDE agents, with a specific verb 'log in' and instructions to obtain an access token via browser. It distinguishes itself by covering both permanent config and session-based login, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.
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: for permanent access, add a bearer token to config; for session-only, pass a JWT token; and for obtaining a login link, call with no arguments. It gives clear 'best' and 'or' guidance, effectively telling the agent when to use each approach.
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, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and marketplace's list_tools could be confused with toolkit_info's list of installed MCPs. Descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate in most cases.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: imperative verbs (authenticate, connect), a lone noun (marketplace), verb_noun compounds (report_bug, show_version), and a Portuguese-specific name (seguro_defeso_consultar). Naming style is highly inconsistent.
Seven tools is within the ideal 3-15 range, and each tool earns its place for platform management. The mix is unusual (infrastructure + marketplace + one domain query), but the count itself is not excessive.
For a server named 'Seguro Defeso', only one domain-specific tool exists (seguro_defeso_consultar), leaving significant gaps in benefit-related operations. The platform tools are complete, but the domain coverage is minimal and could cause agent failures for anything beyond basic consultation.