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 indicate idempotent and non-read-only behavior. The description adds beyond this by explaining that the token provides session-only login, the config header gives a permanent non-expiring connection, and calling with no args returns a link. This adds useful behavioral context not present in 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 three sentences covering purpose, permanent configuration method, and session token method. While the phrasing is slightly informal (e.g., 'Best:'), each sentence provides necessary information with no fluff. It is appropriately sized, though a bit loosely structured.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the full workflow: how to authenticate, both permanent and session modes, and the behavior of calling with no args. It lacks explicit success/error response details, but the description is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.
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 lists an optional string 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT to be pasted for session-only login, and that omitting it triggers link generation. This adds complete semantic meaning to the parameter.
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 purpose: authenticate MCP.AI for IDE agents by logging in and copying an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on the authentication flow and token configuration. The verb 'log in' and resource (MCP.AI) are specific, making the intent unmistakable.
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 guidance: best to add the token as an Authorization header for permanent connection, or pass the token as a parameter for session-only login, or call with no args to get the link. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives, but the context is clear.
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 clear purposes, but 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report connection status, and 'marketplace' subsumes listing tools which overlaps with 'toolkit_info'. These overlapping responsibilities could cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
Tool names are inconsistent: some are bare verbs (connect, authenticate), some use verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), some are noun phrases (toolkit_info, marketplace), and one is a long Portuguese phrase (similaridade_ar_consultar). No coherent pattern.
7 tools is a reasonable count, but the set mixes generic platform management (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) with a single domain-specific query tool, which makes it feel slightly over-scoped for the apparent purpose of identity similarity.
The platform side covers auth, status, marketplace search/invoke, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state, so it is fairly complete. The domain side has only a consult operation, but that matches the simple query nature of the service, so no major gaps.