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 mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds critical behavioral context: it explains the two modes (permanent config vs session-only), how the token is used, and the 'non-expiring' vs 'session-only' distinction. This is useful beyond what annotations state, though it could mention what happens on invalid token or after successful login.
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 bit long and run-on, but every clause adds value. It is logically structured: audience → method → two options → invocation forms. It earns its length but could be split into shorter sentences for clarity, so it is not a perfect 5.
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 simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: how to authenticate, the two connection strategies, and how to invoke the tool. It even mentions the security trade-off of permanent vs. session tokens. There is no missing critical information for an agent to use 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 has a single optional string 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the token is a JWT from the browser and that the parameter is optional—including what happens when omitted (get link) versus when supplied (session login). This is far beyond what the schema provides.
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 MCP.AI for IDE agents. It specifies the action (log in, copy access token) and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on authentication workflow. It even contrasts with a config-based permanent login vs. session-only token paste, which sets it apart from generic '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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to use each invocation style: no args to get the login link, or with a token for session-only login. It also recommends the 'best' approach (config header) for permanent connections, giving a clear decision framework. This goes beyond simple usage and offers 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 distinct overall purpose, but the marketplace tool is a catch-all covering search, invoke, install, prompts, and more, while authenticate and connect overlap in handling credentials and connection status. This creates some ambiguity for an agent choosing between them, especially since the domain-specific tool is the only one actually related to the server's stated purpose.
All names use lowercase snake_case, so there is no mixing of conventions, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), and the domain tool is a long descriptive phrase. This makes the set readable but not predictable.
At 7 tools, the count is within a typical range, but 6 of them are generic platform utilities that do not relate to the server's stated TSE certidão domain. This bloats the tool list for a service whose actual scope is a single lookup operation, making the count feel inappropriate for the apparent purpose.
The one domain tool covers the core action of emitting a certidão, but there are no supporting operations such as verifying a certidão, checking request history, or listing available certidões. The platform tools do not contribute to the domain, so the surface is narrowly functional but lacks any lifecycle or auxiliary operations.