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?
Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses meaningful behavior: it can establish a permanent non-expiring connection via config header or a session-only login. This adds valuable context that annotations alone do not provide.
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 long but well-structured: it starts with the core purpose and then presents two usage options. Every sentence adds necessary information, though it could be slightly tightened without losing 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?
For a simple authentication tool with no output schema, the description is self-contained. It explains the entire flow—browser login, token retrieval, config vs. session modes, and no-args behavior—so an agent has enough context to invoke it 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 lists an optional string token with no description. The description fully compensates by explaining the token is a JWT from the browser and noting that calling with no arguments returns the login link, giving complete parameter meaning.
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 explicitly states the tool's function: authenticate IDE agents via browser login and token copy. It uses a specific verb ('log in') and resource ('access token'), making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from vague tool names.
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 two clear usage paths (permanent config header vs. session-only token) and specifies the intended audience (IDE agents like Cursor). It gives clear context but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'connect', so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Several tools overlap around authentication and connection state: `authenticate`, `connect`, and `toolkit_info` all surface credentials/connection/status information. The large `marketplace` tool also contains sub-actions like invoke, list_tools, and report_bug, creating competing paths to actions that have dedicated top-level tools.
Naming is mixed between bare verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`), snake_case verb phrases (`report_bug`, `show_version`), noun-style labels (`marketplace`, `toolkit_info`), and one long Portuguese domain operation. There is no consistent verb-noun or name-based pattern across the set.
Seven tools is within a reasonable size, and most platform tools have a clear operational role. However, it is slightly over-scoped: only one tool is genuinely domain-specific, while the rest are generic platform/admin helpers that could feel redundant outside the MCP.AI environment.
The core read-only domain need — consulting a TRT1 case — is covered by `tribunal_trt1_processo_consultar`, and marketplace/payment/auth machinery covers surrounding concerns. Deeper court-process operations are not represented, but for a single-source public consultation server there is no obvious severe domain gap.