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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context about the non-expiring nature of the config-based connection and the session-only behavior of token-based login. It also explains the browser login flow, going beyond the structured metadata.
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 that fronts the purpose and then provides clear instructions. While it is somewhat long, every sentence adds value; the structure could be slightly improved with separators, but it remains efficient.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential use cases: both login modes, the config recommendation, and the no-argument behavior. It omits explicit return values, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is not a critical gap.
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% coverage for the token parameter, but the description thoroughly explains it: the token is a JWT pasted by the user, and calling with no arguments returns the login link. This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
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: to authenticate by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token, with options for permanent (config) or session-only (token) login. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing on the specific authentication flow.
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: how to use the config-based approach for a permanent connection, how to use the token parameter for session-only login, and calling with no arguments to get the link. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the alternatives and when to use each mode are clearly stated.
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 distinct purposes: authenticate is for login token, connect for status, marketplace for discovering/running MCPs, report_bug for feedback, show_version for versions, toolkit_info for installed state, and the domain-specific consultar tool. The only slight overlap is between authenticate and connect, as both relate to connection/auth, but their functions are clearly differentiated in the descriptions.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), compound nouns (toolkit_info), and a snake_case domain-specific name (veiculo_historico_sp_consultar). Mixing conventions makes it hard to predict related tool names.
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range. However, the server bundles broad platform utilities with a single domain-specific tool, creating a mismatch with the server name. Still, the count itself is reasonable for the actual functionality offered.
For the vehicle history domain, there is only one consult tool, which covers the basic query but lacks any supporting operations (e.g., history, status, or batch). The platform utilities are fairly complete but belong to a different purpose. This leaves notable gaps if the server is meant to be a cohesive vehicle-history service.