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?
While annotations already indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness, the description adds valuable behavioral details: it distinguishes a permanent (non-expiring) connection via config versus a session-only login via pasted token, and notes that calling with no args returns a link. This goes beyond the sparse 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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and structured with clear alternatives ('Best' vs 'Or'). Every sentence adds value, avoiding fluff.
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 simplicity of the tool (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers the essential use cases: obtaining a link for browser login, pasting a token for session access, and the recommended permanent config method. It is complete for its scope.
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 only has an optional 'token' field with no description. The tool description compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT to be used for session-only login, and that omitting it returns the login link. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 to MCP.AI for IDE agents. It specifies the action (log in in the browser, copy the access token) and differentiates it from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on the authentication flow.
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 recommends the permanent config method (adding a header to the server config) and explains the session-only alternative via pasting a token. It also tells when to call with no args (to get the link) versus with a token.
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.
The tools serve distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version display, a specific SINTEGRA query, and toolkit state. However, 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' both report connection status, creating minor overlap.
Mixed naming conventions: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), snake_case (sintegra_rj_consultar), and noun_noun (toolkit_info). No consistent pattern, making it hard to predict names for similar operations.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a platform that manages MCPs, covering auth, discovery, execution, billing, info, and feedback. Slightly borderline but well-scoped for its broad role.
The platform surfaces core lifecycle operations: authenticate, connect, marketplace (search/describe/invoke/install/manage billing), bug reporting, version check, and toolkit info. A few niche capabilities like explicit uninstall are nested within marketplace, but overall no significant gaps for the declared purpose.