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 say idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description explains that a token can be provided for permanent connection vs session-only, and that it returns a link if called without args. This adds context beyond annotations, though it doesn't explicitly state side effects like token storage or security implications.
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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It conveys essential information in two sentences, avoiding fluff.
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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers all usage modes, setup, and fallback behavior. Annotations already indicate idempotency, so no further disclosure needed.
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 one optional 'token' parameter with no description. The description explains that token is a JWT pasted by the user for session-only login, and that calling without args returns the link. This adds meaning to the parameter, compensating for 0% schema description coverage.
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: authenticate to MCP.AI for IDE agents, with a specific flow (login in browser, copy token). It distinguishes from sibling tools like connect and marketplace by focusing on authentication workflow.
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 instructions: how to set up permanent connection via config header, or session-only login by pasting token, or calling with no args to get link. It also implies when to use this tool (for authentication) vs alternatives (like connect for general connection).
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 tools are clearly distinct: marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info, and the consultation tool each serve unique functions. The only potential confusion is between 'authenticate' and 'connect', but their descriptions clarify that one handles token acquisition and the other reports connection status.
Tool names mix conventions inconsistently: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), snake_case verb-noun (report_bug, show_version), noun-based (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese snake_case domain tool (tribunal_trf5_processo_consultar). While readable, there is no unified naming pattern.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped. Six platform management/utility tools plus one domain-specific consultation tool form a compact set where each tool earns its place, and the count is well within the ideal range.
The server's primary domain purpose is consulting TRF5 processes, and the single domain tool fulfills that core action. Platform coverage via marketplace and toolkit_info is solid. Minor gaps exist—such as specialized process actions or additional query parameters—but the core workflow is not broken.