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 provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral specifics: calling with no args yields a login link, while calling with a token performs a session login. Side effects like session overwrites are not mentioned, but the idempotent hint mitigates this gap.
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?
Only two sentences, but the first is grammatically awkward ('log in in the browser'), and the second is long with multiple clauses. All information is useful, but the structure could be cleaner with clearer separation of the two modes.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, it covers the main usage modes, token semantics, and recommended setup. It implies the response includes a link when called with no args, though it doesn't specify the full response format. Overall, it's sufficiently complete.
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 provides only a 'token' string with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that token is an optional JWT pasted by the user, and that omitting it returns a login link. This is rich semantic guidance beyond the 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 purpose: to authenticate to MCP.AI by logging in and providing an access token. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the browser login flow for IDE agents, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'connect'.
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 provides distinct usage scenarios: permanent config header versus session-only token, and explains when to call with no args (to get a link). This offers clear context for when to use each mode, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.