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; description doesn't contradict. It adds behavior details like returning a link when no token, and distinguishes between permanent and session login, but doesn't explicitly mention potential side effects like overwriting existing token.
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, but it's front-loaded with the primary purpose and then details options. No wasted words, though it could be broken into bullet points for easier parsing.
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 an authentication tool with no output schema, it covers the main invocation scenarios (with/without token, config vs session) and describes the overall flow. Missing explicit return value formats, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 single parameter 'token' is clearly explained: it's a JWT to paste for session login, and the no-argument call is described. Since schema has no per-parameter descriptions, this fully compensates.
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 it handles authentication for IDE agents, with a specific action (log in, get token, configure). It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' and 'report_bug' by focusing on 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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use permanent config vs session token, and how to call with or without token. It even mentions the preferred approach (best: config header) and alternative, making usage clear.
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 clearly distinct roles: authenticate for login, connect for status, marketplace for MCP discovery/invocation, and the rest for ancillary functions. The only minor overlap is between authenticate and connect, but their descriptions make the boundary clear enough.
Tool names are readable but mix conventions: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace), snake_case verbs (report_bug, show_version), and a domain-prefixed snake_case (sintegra_rr_consultar). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, though each name still conveys its purpose adequately.
Seven tools is a reasonable size for a server that combines platform utilities with a single domain-specific consultation. The count is not bloated, and each utility earns its place in the overall workflow.
The platform lifecycle is well covered: authentication, connection status, marketplace search/describe/invoke/install, bug reporting, and version information. The SINTEGRA RR domain is narrow but sufficient for a one-shot consultation, though missing features like query history or batch operations are a minor gap.