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 cover idempotency and non-read-only. Description adds behavioral context (browser flow, permanent vs session) without contradicting annotations. Does not detail side effects like token replacement, but idempotentHint mitigates concerns.
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?
Two sentences, but somewhat run-on. Front-loaded with the main action (log in) and clearly separates the two methods. Could be broken into bullet points, but not overly verbose.
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 auth tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers the essential steps and outcomes (link vs token, permanent vs session). It omits error handling or post-auth verification, but overall adequate.
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?
Schema has 0% coverage, but description compensates by explaining the token param as a JWT and gives usage examples ({ token: "<jwt>" } and no args). Semantics are clear, though lacks format details such as expiration.
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: authentication for IDE agents via browser login. It distinguishes from siblings (connect, marketplace, etc.) by focusing exclusively on access token handling.
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 usage scenarios: permanent config header vs session-only token paste, and no-args mode to fetch the login link. Clearly tells the agent when to use this tool over alternatives.
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 platform tools have distinct purposes, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection statuses, and marketplace overlaps with tool listing and installation. The single domain-specific tool (susep_empresas_consultar) is completely unrelated to the platform tools, creating confusion about the server's actual role.
Tool names mix verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and verb_noun compounds (report_bug, show_version). The domain tool susep_empresas_consultar uses a Portuguese phrasal structure with the verb at the end, breaking any consistent English naming pattern.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but the server is named 'SUSEP: Empresas' and only one tool actually addresses that domain. The other six are generic MCP platform utilities that belong to a general toolkit, making the tool set poorly scoped for its stated purpose.
For the SUSEP Empresas domain, only a single consult operation exists, with no search, list, or other CRUD-like capabilities. While the marketplace tool can invoke external MCPs, it does not fill the gap of domain-specific operations within this server.