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 reveal idempotent, non-read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the token is a JWT, no-args invocation returns a link, and the tool supports two modes (permanent and session). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 information-dense but well-structured, with a clear progression from context to the recommended approach to the alternative. It could be slightly more concise by trimming the IDE agent examples, but every sentence adds useful detail.
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 tool with one optional parameter, the description covers both invocation modes and the config-based permanent connection. It does not explicitly describe the return values or error cases, but the absence of an output schema makes this acceptable. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct use.
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 input schema only defines an optional 'token' string with no description. The description fully compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT obtained from the browser and by showing exactly how to pass it ('{ token: "<jwt>" }'), as well as the meaning of omitting it (returns a link).
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: to authenticate IDE agents by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It uses specific verbs ('log in', 'copy the access token') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on authentication for MCP.AI.
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 instructions: either add the token to the server config for a permanent connection or pass it as a parameter for session-only login. It also explains that calling with no arguments returns a login link. However, it does not directly contrast with sibling tools, so it slightly misses the 'when vs alternatives' aspect.
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 there is potential confusion between the marketplace (which can also run CPF/CNPJ queries by invoking external MCPs) and the dedicated sintegra_ccc_completa_consultar tool. Additionally, connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, which may cause mis-selection.
Naming is highly inconsistent: some tools are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), one is a noun (marketplace), others are verb_noun with underscores (report_bug, show_version), and the Sintegra tool is a long domain-specific phrase with the verb at the end. There is no discernible pattern across the set.
At 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range. However, the server's name implies a Sintegra-focused tool, while most tools are generic platform features; still, each tool appears to have a distinct function and the count is not excessive.
The core Sintegra consultation is covered by a single comprehensive query tool. Platform-level tools for authentication, connection status, marketplace access, and version reporting round out the surface. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for managing or reviewing past consultations, but these are likely handled through the marketplace.