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 idempotent and non-destructive, which the description does not contradict. The description adds context about the two authentication workflows, the session vs permanent distinction, and what the response contains (a link). It does not detail side effects or error handling, but with annotations the bar is lower; this is sufficient.
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 it packs in multiple instructions (browser login, token copy, config option, session option, no-args behavior). It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Slightly dense but no fluff, though it could be broken into two sentences for clarity.
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 distinct flows, prerequisite user action), the description covers all necessary context: getting the token, installing permanently via config, session-only usage, and how to trigger the link. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains behavior.
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 generic 'token' string with no description. The tool description explains exactly how to use the token: paste it in the call, or leave out to get the link. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema, compensating for zero 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 tool's purpose: authentication for IDE agents. It specifies both modes (permanent config vs session-only) and tells how to invoke it (with or without token). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect or report_bug, which serve different functions.
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?
Explicitly describes when to use each method: adding token to config for permanent access, or pasting token for session-only. It also explains when to call with no args (to get the link). This provides clear guidance on invocation scenarios and prerequisites.
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 have distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state, and a specific court query tool. However, 'connect' and 'authenticate' have some overlap in managing connection state, and 'toolkit_info' could be confused with marketplace's 'list_tools' for checking installed tools.
Tool names are a mix of single verbs (connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version) and noun-based names (toolkit_info), with one snake_case full description (tribunal_trt14_processo_consultar). The server-related tools are inconsistent in style, and the domain-specific tool follows a different convention.
Seven tools is an appropriate number for a server that offers both platform-level functionality (auth, version, bug reporting, toolkit info) and a specific domain-specific query tool (tribunal query). It is slightly on the higher side for such a narrow purpose, but each tool has a clear role.
The server covers the core needs: authentication, connectivity, marketplace discovery/execution, bug feedback, version checking, and a single legal query tool. Missing are operations like managing previous queries, handling billing details (beyond what marketplace does), or other tribunal-specific endpoints, but the main workflow is complete.