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 (idempotentHint=true), the description adds behavioral detail: it can establish a permanent non-expiring connection via config, or a session-only login via token, and no-args returns a link. This gives useful context about modes and state.
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 single, information-dense paragraph. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the purpose, but could benefit from bullet points for clarity. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The tool has no output schema, and the description only specifies the output for the no-args case ('to get the link'). It does not describe what happens after a successful token-based login, or potential errors, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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 0% description coverage for the 'token' parameter, but the description fully explains it: an optional JWT pasted by the user, with one behavior when provided and another when omitted. This compensates completely for the schema gap.
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 IDE agents via browser login and access token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing on token exchange 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?
It provides clear context for when to use the tool (IDE agents) and explains two usage modes: permanent config header or session-only token. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
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: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, version info, toolkit state, and vehicle history query. Some overlap exists between 'connect' and 'toolkit_info' (both report connection state), but descriptions are sufficient to distinguish them. The marketplace tool is broad but internally coherent.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb-noun with underscore (report_bug, show_version), and a Portuguese domain-specific name (veiculo_historico_consultar). Mixing languages and grammatical forms makes the naming unpredictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a platform utility server, but the server name suggests a dedicated vehicle history service, with only one tool actually related to that domain. The rest are generic MCP meta-tools, making the count seem padded or the scope unclear.
For a server named 'Histórico Veicular Nacional', only one tool addresses the apparent domain. There are no other vehicle-related operations (e.g., search by plate, list vehicles, different document types), and the remaining tools are unrelated platform utilities. This leaves significant gaps if the intended use is comprehensive vehicle history coverage.