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 provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context about permanent vs session-only connections and the browser interaction required. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and the behavioral characteristics are sufficiently disclosed.
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 and covers all necessary information without excessive verbosity. The opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' is slightly awkward but not wasteful, and each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's use.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary usage modes and the parameter's role. It does not mention response formats or error handling for invalid tokens, but it is substantially complete for an authentication tool given the available annotations.
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 has a single undocumented 'token' parameter (0% description coverage). The description compensates by explaining that 'token' is a JWT for session-only login and that omitting it yields a login link, providing meaning beyond the raw schema.
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 via browser login and access token handling. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect or marketplace by focusing on token acquisition and session management.
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 explicit usage instructions for two scenarios: adding a permanent `Authorization: Bearer <token>` header to the server config, or using a session-only login by passing a JWT token as a parameter. It also explains that calling with no args returns the login link, giving clear context for when to use each approach.
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 serve distinct platform functions (auth, connection status, marketplace, bug reporting, version, toolkit info), and the TRT consultation tool is clearly separate. Some overlap exists between 'authenticate' and 'connect' (both deal with connection/auth state), but their roles are sufficiently differentiated by descriptions.
Tool names mix English and Portuguese, and follow no uniform pattern: some are lowercase verbs (authenticate, connect), one is an underscored lowercase noun (toolkit_info), and the domain tool uses a Portuguese verb_noun structure (trt_processos_consultar). This inconsistency makes the set feel disjointed.
With 7 tools, the count is not excessive, but the scope is muddled: six generic platform tools are paired with one domain-specific tool. For a server named 'Processos TRT', the majority are unrelated, while for a platform server, the TRT tool seems out of place. The tool set lacks a clear, focused purpose.
For the apparent TRT domain, only a single query operation is provided (consult by CPF/CNPJ). There is no support for fetching process details by number, checking status, or any other related operations. The platform tools add broad capabilities, but they do not address gaps in the domain surface, leaving the server incomplete for its stated purpose.