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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context: it explains that the token can be stored permanently in config or used session-only, and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not mention side effects like browser interaction, but the annotations cover safety. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the two modes and the token handling.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses two sentences to convey the key information, with no fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the two methods clearly), but overall it is efficient and readable.
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 tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the two authentication flows and the token handling. It could mention what the response looks like (e.g., success message) but that is not critical. The description covers the essential usage scenarios and is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool 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?
The schema has one optional parameter 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description explains that the token is a JWT to be passed after the user pastes it, and that calling with no args gets the link. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but it does not specify the token format or validation. Since the schema is minimal, the description partially compensates, but could be more detailed about the token's role.
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 MCP.AI server for IDE agents by logging in and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on authentication, while siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' serve different functions. However, it could be more explicit about the resource being authenticated (the server) and the exact action (obtaining a token).
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: it explains two methods (permanent via config header, session-only via token argument) and when to use each. It also tells the agent to call with no args to get the link, and with a token after the user pastes it. This clearly differentiates from alternatives and gives actionable steps.
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.
Several tools overlap around authentication and connection state: authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all report or manage credentials/connections, and marketplace bundles billing, install, listing, and feedback features that also touch report_bug and toolkit_info. The detailed descriptions make the primary purpose of each tool mostly distinguishable, but an agent could still hesitate when choosing between them.
The names mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb_noun snake_case (report_bug, show_version), and an inverted Portuguese compound (sintegra_pa_consultar). There is no consistent naming convention or predictable verb/noun ordering across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable size for a platform-management surface, and most tools have a distinct enough role to justify their existence. The count is slightly inflated by redundant auth/status utilities and by marketplace being a catch-all, but it is not excessive.
As a SINTEGRA PA server, the actual domain surface is thin: only sintegra_pa_consultar performs a domain action, with no credit/balance visibility, query status, or alternative consultation modes. The platform-management side is fairly complete, but the domain-specific coverage feels minimal for the server's stated purpose.