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 idempotency and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: that calling with no args returns a login link, while calling with a token establishes a session, and it distinguishes between permanent and session-only logging. No contradictions with 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 a single complex sentence but packs in essential instructions without fluff. It slightly suffers from being a wall of text with semicolons and parentheses, but every clause contributes meaning. Still, it's more structured than a terse one-word description.
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 tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the main workflows: config header for permanent auth, session token, and link retrieval. It doesn't specify error handling or exact response format, but for an authentication tool this is likely sufficient.
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 provides only a 'token' string with no description and zero coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining the token is a JWT copied from the browser, how to pass it, and that omitting it returns the login link. This is exactly what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
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 specifies the tool's purpose: authenticating with MCP.AI for IDE agents, with a specific login flow (browser login, copy token, either configure a permanent header or provide a session token). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on authentication rather than connection or marketplace operations, even though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 gives clear context for when to use the two modes: a permanent connection via config header versus a session-only login via pasted token. It also states that calling with no args returns a link. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to sibling tools like 'connect', but the usage scenarios are well explained.
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/state information, and 'authenticate' overlaps with 'connect' around authentication. The single domain-specific tool 'similaridade_mx_consultar' stands apart, but the platform tools could still confuse an agent.
Naming is mixed: bare verbs ('authenticate', 'connect'), nouns ('marketplace', 'toolkit_info'), verb_noun compounds ('report_bug', 'show_version'), and a Portuguese phrase ('similaridade_mx_consultar'). No consistent convention across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server's stated purpose (identity similarity in México) is served by only one tool; the rest are generic platform helpers. This makes the count feel mismatched to the domain, though not excessive.
The platform utilities cover authentication, state, marketplace, and feedback adequately. However, the domain-specific 'consultar' tool is a single query with no additional operations like history, batch, or validation, leaving gaps for a comprehensive identity-similarity service.