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 discloses the tool's dual-mode behavior (permanent vs session) and the difference in outcome when called with or without a token. It adds context beyond the annotations, such as the need for browser interaction to obtain the JWT, without contradicting the idempotentHint.
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 concise and well-organized, starting with the primary use case and then presenting options via 'Best' and 'Or'. It covers necessary details without redundancy or excessive length.
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 lack of an output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the agent should expect: a link upon token-less invocation and successful authentication when a token is provided. It could include more error-handling details, but it is complete enough for this straightforward tool.
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's 'token' parameter has no description, but the description explains it is a JWT copied from the browser and that it is optional (omitting it yields the link). This fully clarifies the parameter's meaning and usage, compensating 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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' and provides two authentication options. It uses specific action verbs and clearly distinguishes this from connection tools by focusing on authentication, making the purpose 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?
It offers clear usage directives: either add the token to the server config as a header for a permanent connection, or pass it via the 'token' parameter for a session. It also specifies that calling with no arguments retrieves the login link, giving the agent concrete instructions on when to invoke each variant.
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.
Top-level tools are mostly distinct, but marketplace is a broad catch-all that overlaps with report_bug, toolkit_info, connect, and authenticate at the sub-function level. An agent could easily route an action to the wrong tool when the boundaries between marketplace's built-in operations and the standalone tools are blurry.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use bare verbs (connect, authenticate), some use nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), some use verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), and one is a Portuguese verb-object phrase (sintegra_ba_consultar). The lack of a consistent pattern or language makes the set feel ad hoc.
Seven tools is not excessive, but the server is titled SINTEGRA: BA while only one tool is domain-specific; the other six are generic platform utilities. The count is reasonable for a platform assistant server but feels inflated and unfocused for what the name implies.
Platform-side workflows are well covered: authentication, connection status, marketplace discovery/execution/install, billing, bug reporting, version, and toolkit state are all present. For the SINTEGRA BA domain, only a single consultation tool exists, but that likely matches the core need of this query service.