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 idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: the config header yields a permanent non-expiring connection, while pasting the token gives session-only access, and calling with no args returns the login link. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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?
Three sentences convey the complete authentication flow without redundancy. While slightly long, each sentence adds necessary information about modes, token handling, and behavior. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.
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 no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors: retrieving a link with no args and using a JWT for session login. It doesn't detail success/error responses for token submission or token expiration, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple auth tool.
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's single optional 'token' parameter has no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the token is a JWT provided by the user and that omitting it retrieves the login link. This makes the parameter semantics clear and complete.
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 for MCP.AI via browser login, offering two methods (permanent header config or session token). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' by detailing the specific authentication workflow for IDE agents.
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 clear usage context: for IDE agents, with two explicit modes (permanent config via Authorization header vs session-only token paste) and instructions for calling with or without the token. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools.
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: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and marketplace embeds sub-actions (report_bug, list_tools) that duplicate standalone tools. Agents may struggle to choose the right tool.
All names use snake_case, but the style is mixed: some are verbs (authenticate, connect, show_version), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the domain tool stm_certidao_consultar reverses the noun-verb order. This inconsistency makes the set less predictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but six are generic platform utilities unrelated to the 'Certidão STM' purpose. The set feels bloated for a server whose name suggests a narrow domain, with only one tool actually serving that domain.
For the named domain, only a single consult operation exists—no history, reprint, or status features. The platform tools cover a different domain entirely, leaving the certidão functionality with significant gaps if that is the server's intended focus.