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 indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, explaining the two login modes, how the token is supplied, and that no args returns a login link. It does not describe failure modes or side effects, but the added context is meaningful.
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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes actionable information. It is concise without sacrificing necessary detail.
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 simple authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the main workflows: permanent config via header, session login via token, and no-args link retrieval. It could mention success/error responses or invalid-token behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 only defines an optional string token with no field description. The description fully compensates by explaining that 'token' is a JWT pasted from the browser, and that calling with no args yields the login link. This gives complete parameter semantics despite 0% schema 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 tool's purpose: authenticating an IDE agent to MCP.AI by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It gives specific actions and context, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like '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?
The description provides clear usage guidelines: add the token to server config for permanent access, or pass it as a parameter for session-only login, or call with no args to receive the login link. It gives practical context but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives.
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 clearly distinct purpose: auth and connection status, marketplace discovery/execution, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state, and the legal certificate query. There is no meaningful overlap between tools.
Tool naming is inconsistent: several use generic verbs (connect, marketplace, authenticate) while the domain-specific tool uses a long descriptive snake_case (tribunal_trt12_ceat_consultar). However, within the set there is some pattern since most tools are lower-case single words, but the style varies.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for this server, which combines meta-functionality (marketplace, auth, toolkit info) with one domain-specific query tool. It's not too heavy, though some tools like report_bug and show_version are auxiliary.
For a CEAT-specific server, only one query tool is provided, which covers the primary use case but lacks other potential operations like listing past certificates or managing queries. The meta-tools (marketplace, connect) fill ecosystem gaps, but the domain surface is thin.