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 discloses useful behavioral details beyond annotations, including the distinction between permanent config-based auth and session-only token paste, and that no args yields a login link. Annotations already mark idempotent and non-destructive; no contradiction found.
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 compact, front-loaded with the tool's context and purpose, and every sentence adds actionable information. It avoids fluff or repetition of schema data.
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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, authentication flow, token parameter semantics, and two usage modes. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly state what response or confirmation the user sees after submitting a token.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the optional 'token' parameter as a JWT to paste, and that calling with no args returns the link. This gives clear semantic meaning to the only parameter.
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 authenticates MCP.AI for IDE agents via browser login and token handling. It explains the primary workflow and different call modes, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool '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 gives explicit guidance: use the config header for a permanent non-expiring connection, paste the token for a session-only login, or call with no args to get the login link. It does not mention when not to use this tool in favor of a specific sibling.
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 clearly distinct purposes (authenticate vs connect, marketplace vs toolkit_info), though authenticate and connect both relate to authentication and could potentially be confused. The single domain-specific tool stands apart clearly.
Tool names mix verb-led (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) and noun-led (marketplace, toolkit_info) patterns, with one unusually long domain-specific name (tribunal_trt16_processo_consultar). While all use snake_case, the lack of a consistent verb_noun or noun pattern makes naming unpredictable.
Seven tools is within a normal count, but for a server named 'Tribunal TRT16: Consulta Processual', six of the seven tools are generic MCP platform utilities unrelated to the tribunal domain. The tool count is excessive for the apparent purpose, which should focus on process consultation.
The only domain-specific tool is a single consult endpoint. There are no obvious supporting tools for the tribunal domain, such as case listing, search variations, or history. The platform tools do not contribute to domain completeness, leaving significant gaps for a consultation-focused server.