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 clarifies persistence behavior (permanent vs session-only) and that calling with no args retrieves the login link. This adds useful behavioral detail beyond the basic annotations, and there is no contradiction with readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints.
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 moderately verbose but every sentence carries meaningful guidance. The structure with 'Best' and 'Or' is clear, though the opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' could be trimmed without loss.
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?
The description covers the main workflow, token handling, and both permanent and session-only modes. It does not specify the exact return value, but no output schema is provided and the expected behavior is sufficiently inferable for an authentication tool.
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 no description for the token parameter, but the description explains that it is the JWT/bearer token obtained from the browser and that it should be passed as { token: "<jwt>" }. It also implicitly indicates the parameter is optional by describing a no-args call.
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: authenticating an MCP.AI user for IDE agents by obtaining and using an access token. It distinguishes between permanent configuration and session-only login, making the action unmistakable.
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 concrete usage instructions: add the token to server config for permanent access, or call with token for session-only login, or call with no args to get the login link. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the alternative modes are well explained.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: authenticate handles login, connect checks status, marketplace manages MCP discovery/invocation, report_bug sends feedback, show_version displays versions, toolkit_info describes installed MCPs, and the tribunal tool queries process data. No two tools overlap in functionality, so misselection is unlikely.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some are single verbs (authenticate, connect), some snake_case verb_noun (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and the domain tool is a long, fully descriptive name (tribunal_trf6_processo_consultar) that breaks from the others entirely.
While 7 total tools is a reasonable number, the apparent scope is a domain-specific tribunal process server, yet 6 of the 7 tools are generic MCP platform utilities. This leaves only one tool actually serving the domain, which feels too thin and misaligned with the server's stated purpose.
For a tribunal process server, the only operation is a generic consult (tribunal_trf6_processo_consultar). There are no tools for searching by case number, listing processes, or retrieving detailed case information. The platform tools don't address the domain, leaving significant gaps that would require workarounds or manual user intervention.