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 it's not read-only and is idempotent. The description adds valuable context: the differentiation between permanent (config header) and session-only (token) login, and that calling with no args returns a link. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the tool's side effects and state changes.
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 dense paragraph that is reasonably concise. It front-loads the audience ('MCP.AI for IDE agents') and then provides sequential instructions. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be broken into bullets for clarity; still, it's far from verbose.
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 key aspects: what it does, how to use it, and the two modes. It lacks a description of the return value when a token is passed, but given the simplicity and annotations, this is not a major gap. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT to paste, describes the no-args behavior (returns link), and clarifies the context of both invocations. This is complete and adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.
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 the user via browser login and token handling. It specifies the two methods (permanent config vs session token) and distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on authentication, though it doesn't explicitly compare to 'connect'. The verb 'authenticate' and resource context are 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?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for permanent connections, add the token to config; for session-only, pass the token. It also instructs to call with no args to receive the link. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or distinguish it from sibling 'connect', so it falls short of a 5.
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: auth, connection status, marketplace, feedback, version, query, toolkit state. However, 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both convey connection status, and 'marketplace' is a catch-all for many sub-operations, creating minor overlap.
Names are inconsistent: some are generic verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and sintegra_go_consultar uses Portuguese. There's no uniform verb_noun pattern, though they're all snake_case and readable.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable, though the server seems to bundle platform utilities with a single domain-specific tool, making the scope slightly muddled. Each tool has a distinct function, so it's not overly heavy.
For a SINTEGRA GO server, only one domain tool exists, but the marketplace tool provides broad access to other MCPsWFilling gaps. Platform operations (auth, status, feedback, version, toolkit info) are covered, but the domain surface is thin.