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 already declare idempotentHint=true and non-destructive behaviorchen, so the description adds detail about permanent vs session-only login and the need for user interaction (browser login). It doesn't explain what the tool returns, but that's less critical for auth. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.
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?
Two sentences pack in purpose, two usage modes, and the argument contract without redundancy. Every clause earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the key 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?
Given the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage scenarios and distinguishes between permanent and session-based auth. It doesn't discuss edge cases like re-authentication or error handling, but for this simplicity it is largely 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'token' parameter meaning (JWT to paste for session-only login) and clarifies that calling without args returns the auth link. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare string type.
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 explicitly states it authenticates the user for MCP.AI via browser login or token, and distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' which serve other purposes. The verb 'authenticate' is specific and the resource context is clear.
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 when-to-use guidance (first-time setup, session vs. permanent auth) and alternatives (config header vs. token param). Even explains the no-arg call for getting the link, covering all invocation modes.
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.
The CNH query tool is clearly distinct from the platform utilities, and each utility has a generally separate role. The main ambiguity is between connect, authenticate, and toolkit_info, which all revolve around connection/status but still have enough detail to distinguish them in most cases.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), some are underscore verb phrases (report_bug, show_version), one is a bare marketplace noun, and the domain tool uses an awkward Portuguese-style mixed name (senatran_validar_cnh_consultar). There is no predictable naming convention.
Seven tools is not an unreasonable count, but only one tool actually serves the stated SENATRAN CNH purpose while the other six are generic platform, marketplace, connection, version, and toolkit utilities. The set feels padded with platform infrastructure rather than being scoped to the CNH validation domain.
The domain is essentially consult/validate CNH, and the single domain tool does cover that core need. Some auxiliary CNH features such as quota/balance visibility or batch validation are not present, but they are partly handled by the surrounding platform tools, so there is no critical dead end.