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 mark idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds that no-arg calls return a link, token calls enable session-only login, and config-based header provides permanent access. It clarifies behavioral traits like token handling and session scope without contradicting the 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 moderately sized and front-loaded with purpose. It uses structured formatting ('Best:' and 'Or') to organize permanent vs session-only options, and every sentence adds necessary information about the authentication flow.
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 auth tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, it explains both invocation modes and their outcomes (link vs session). It does not specify the exact return payload on success, but the provided details are sufficient for an agent to call 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 only has an optional 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining the token as '<jwt>' to paste for session login, and also explains the no-args alternative to obtain a link, thus covering the parameter's meaning and usage.
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 is for authentication with 'log in in the browser, copy the access token.' It clearly identifies the action and the resource (IDE agents), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on the login/token 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?
It provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header ... for permanent ... Or paste it here for session-only login' and 'call with no args to get the link.' This gives clear guidance on when to use each invocation mode, though it doesn't mention alternatives among siblings.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct role: authenticate handles login, connect checks connection status, marketplace discovers/invokes MCPs, report_bug sends feedback, show_version reports versions, toolkit_info shows installed state, and sintegra_rn_consultar performs the actual query. Some overlap exists between connect and toolkit_info (both report status), but they emphasize different details (auth URLs vs. installed MCPs), so confusion is unlikely.
Tool names follow no single convention: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), some are noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), one is verb+noun (show_version), and one is domain-specific snake_case (sintegra_rn_consultar). The mixing of verb-first, noun-first, and domain-prefixed names makes the set feel inconsistent and harder to predict.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the count is imbalanced relative to the server's stated purpose ('SINTEGRA: RN'). Six of the seven tools are generic MCP platform management tools, while only one tool actually handles SINTEGRA consultation. The number isn't extreme, but the composition suggests a scope mismatch.
As a platform management server, the coverage is solid: authentication, connection status, marketplace search/invoke/install, toolkit state, version, and bug reporting are all present. However, for the domain implied by the server name, the only capability is a single SINTEGRA query—no other operations are exposed. This leaves the actual domain under-covered while over-covering platform plumbing.