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 declare idempotent/non-destructive. Description adds the distinction between permanent config and session-only token, and explains the two invocation modes. It doesn't describe return values, but annotations cover safety.
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?
Three sentences, concise enough, each part adds value. Not as tight as possible but well-structured.
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?
While the description covers the main use cases, it lacks explicit information about the return value for token validation and error handling. Given no output schema, some detail on expected response would improve completeness.
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 no description for 'token', and the description fully explains its meaning (JWT) and the behavior when omitted (returns link). This is high-value compensation for zero schema 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 performs authentication for IDE agents, explaining both modes (link generation and token validation). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'connect', but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
It provides explicit instructions on when to use the config approach vs the tool, and when to call with or without token. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'connect' but gives clear usage context.
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 clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state, and vehicle consultation. No two tools overlap in functionality, so an agent can reliably select the right one.
Tool names are inconsistent, mixing English verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace), verb+noun (report_bug, show_version), noun+noun (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese snake_case domain term (veiculo_estadual_consultar). No consistent convention is used across the set.
Seven tools is a moderate count, but six of them are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated vehicle-consultation purpose. The domain-specific surface is minimal, making the server feel padded with infrastructure tools.
For the domain of vehicle consultation, the single tool covers the core needs (lookup by plate with debts and situation). There are minor potential gaps, such as distinguishing different query types (e.g., by VIN), but the current surface is workable for a read-only consultation service.