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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that calling with no args returns a login link, and that pasting a token provides session-only access. It also mentions the token is a JWT, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after authentication (e.g., whether it modifies server state) beyond the idempotent hint.
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 a single sentence but packs a lot of information: the target audience, the login process, the two usage modes, and the alternative permanent configuration. It is front-loaded with the purpose and provides actionable details. Slightly verbose but justified given the complexity of the authentication flow.
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's complexity (authentication with two modes), the description covers the essential aspects: how to initiate login, how to use a token, and the alternative permanent setup. There is no output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It could mention what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure), but the core usage is well covered.
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 and how to use it: call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes, or with no args to get the link. This adds significant meaning 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 states the tool's purpose: to authenticate an IDE agent by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on authentication, while siblings like connect and marketplace serve different functions. However, it could be more explicit about the resource being authenticated (the MCP server).
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 guidance: it explains when to use it (for login), how to use it (with a token or no args to get a link), and even offers an alternative (adding the token to the server's config for a permanent connection). This clearly differentiates between session-only and permanent authentication methods.
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 are individually distinct (authenticate vs connect vs report_bug), but marketplace is an overloaded mega-tool containing many sub-actions (search, invoke, install, list_tools, subscription, prompt library) that overlaps with toolkit_info and connect. The single domain tool is clearly different, but the boundary between marketplace's introspection features and the other status/connection tools is fuzzy.
Naming follows no coherent pattern: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace), snake_case compound nouns (show_version, toolkit_info), a camelCase verb (report_bug), and a long Portuguese snake_case domain tool (tribunal_tjsc_processo_consultar). The mix of languages and naming styles makes the set feel chaotic.
Seven tools is a reasonable number overall, but only one of them (tribunal_tjsc_processo_consultar) matches the server's stated purpose. The other six are platform/meta tools that would be more appropriate in a general MCP platform server, making the count inappropriate for a 'Tribunal TJSC' domain-focused server.
For the apparent domain of consulting TJSC processes, the lone tribunal_tjsc_processo_consultar tool provides a core query operation, but there are no related operations like listing processes, getting detailed segments, or handling multiple consultation types. The platform tools do not fill this gap; they address a different domain entirely.