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?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as permanent vs. session-only behavior and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not contradict the idempotentHint annotation and clarifies what the tool does with a 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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose then explaining options. Every sentence adds actionable information without unnecessary fluff, though it is longer than typical descriptions.
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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers permanent setup, session-only login, token argument, and no-argument behavior. It leaves out only minor details like exact response format, but that is not critical.
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 string token with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT pasted by the user and that omitting it will produce a link, covering the parameter's meaning and 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 identifies the tool's purpose: authenticating the user for IDE agents. It specifies the action ('log in in the browser, copy the access token') and differentiates from siblings 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?
The description provides explicit usage scenarios: permanent configuration via Authorization header vs. session-only login by pasting a token. It also explains how to invoke with a token argument or with no arguments to get a link. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternative sibling tools, it gives clear contextual guidance.
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.
The marketplace tool is a single tool that combines search, execution, installation, billing, and prompt management, creating a broad, ambiguous interface. connect, authenticate, and toolkit_info all relate to connection or status, with overlapping purposes. Only tcu_consolidada_pj_consultar is clearly distinct.
Tool names mix single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and verb-noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), with the domain-specific tool using a long snake_case phrase. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
Seven tools is within the typical 3-15 range, but six of them are generic platform management utilities, while only one addresses the server's named TCU purpose. The count is reasonable for a general MCP platform but mismatched for a TCU-specific server.
For the TCU domain, only a single query operation exists, with no additional lookups or related actions. The platform side is more complete, but the server's core stated purpose—TCU consolidated data—has minimal coverage, leaving agents without fallback or complementary operations.