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 indicate the tool is not read-only and is idempotent, the description adds critical context: it guides the user to log in in the browser, copy the token, and explains the two authentication modes (permanent vs session-only). It does not contradict annotations and adds value by clarifying the interaction flow, though it could mention that calling with no args opens a link.
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 well-structured, with clear instructions separated by periods. It front-loads the key actions (log in, copy token) and then provides options for permanent and session login, making efficient use of words without redundancy.
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 has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the purpose, authentication steps, token handling, and both usage modes. It is complete for an authentication tool, providing sufficient guidance for an agent to invoke it 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, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT to be pasted, and that calling with no args gets the login link. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could be slightly more explicit about the format or 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 clearly states the purpose: authenticating an IDE agent to the MCP.AI server by logging in and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining the authentication flow, which is unique among the listed siblings.
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 explicitly explains two usage scenarios: permanent login via config header and session-only login by pasting the token. It also mentions when to call with no args to get the link, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool and how.
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 in purpose: 'authenticate' and 'connect' both handle login/connection, while 'marketplace' bundles discovery, running, installing, and invoking capabilities. The descriptions are verbose and intermix multiple actions, making it hard to distinguish when to use which tool.
Names mix verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese phrase (sncr_imoveis_consultar). There is no consistent pattern, and some names are generic or vague (connect, marketplace).
Seven tools is within the typical range, but the set mixes general MCP management (marketplace, toolkit_info, authenticate) with a single domain-specific query (sncr_imoveis_consultar). This suggests scope creep, though the number itself is not excessive.
For the apparent primary domain (property consultation), only one tool exists, lacking capabilities like filtering, details, or list operations. The meta-management tools cover many platform features, but the domain surface is severely incomplete.