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 provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint but not deeper behavioral context; the description adds meaningful transparency by explaining that config-based auth gives a permanent non-expiring connection while passing a token creates a session-only login. It does not overclaim or contradict 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 reasonably concise and each sentence contributes actionable information: workflow, permanent config option, and session-only call modes. The phrasing is a bit run-on and mixes user instructions with API behavior, but it remains 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?
For a single-optional-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the main call patterns and setup options. It could be stronger by explicitly noting that this authentication is prerequisite for the sibling tools, but the provided flow is sufficient 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 only defines an optional 'token' string with no description, and the description compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT and that omitting arguments yields a login link. This is useful semantic detail beyond the bare 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 identifies the tool as a login/authentication flow for IDE agents, and distinct call modes are stated (no args for a link, token for session login). However, the first sentence is somewhat unstructured and mixes browser/user instructions with tool behavior, so it is not a crisp 'this tool does X' statement.
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 gives explicit guidance on when to pass a token versus call with no arguments, and explains the permanent config approach versus a session-only login. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use warning or comparison with alternative auth methods, but the context is clear enough.
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.
Many tools have overlapping boundaries: arquivos_create vs arquivos_put both add files, configuracoes_list vs configuracoes_list_get vs ini_config are three config-listing variants, and sindicos_list vs sindicos_list_get vs responsaveis_list vs usuario_list are four person-listing tools with similar semantics. The recurring _list vs _list_get suffix pattern across resources (inadimplencia, planocontas, configuracoes, sindicos) makes selection genuinely ambiguous.
The superlogica_<resource>_<action> prefix is consistent, but action verbs are a chaotic mix of English (create, delete, update) and Portuguese (desfazer, estornar, liquidar, desinvalidar), and HTTP-method suffixes are semantically inverted (malotes_put creates while malotes_post edits; despesas_post edits). Platform tools (authenticate, marketplace, toolkit_info) break the pattern entirely, and there is a typo in ocorrencias_susgestoes.
120 tools is an extreme count, far beyond the 50+ threshold for a mismatch. Even granting the breadth of a condominium-management domain, the surface looks like an uncurated endpoint-by-endpoint dump of the entire Superlógica API rather than a designed tool set.
The core domain is remarkably well covered: receitas, despesas, acordos, cobranças, unidades, condomínios, ocorrências, reservas, tickets, processos judiciais, and relatórios all have substantial lifecycle coverage including create/edit/delete/liquidar/estornar operations. Minor gaps exist (no delete for fornecedores or comunicados, no get-by-id for condominios/cobrancas, no ticket status update), but agents can work around most of them.