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 a non-readonly, idempotent operation. The description adds context about the browser login flow and token handling, and explains the difference between permanent and session logins. It doesn't contradict annotations, but could be more explicit about side effects (e.g., opening a browser or the response after token submission).
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 slightly longer than necessary but well-structured with a colon-separated series of alternatives. Each sentence adds useful information about authentication setup and invocation, though it could be condensed slightly.
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, but the description explains the two call patterns and the concept of permanent vs session login. It omits details about the response format or error cases, but for a simple auth tool, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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 provides no description for the optional 'token' parameter, but the description fully explains its meaning: passing a token enables session-only login, while omitting it returns a login link. This completely compensates for the schema's 0% 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's purpose: authenticating IDE agents via browser login and token. It distinguishes itself by explaining the permanent config vs session-only login options, which differentiates it from sibling tools like connect or marketplace.
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?
Explicitly describes when to use the tool (to authenticate) and provides two alternative usage paths: adding token to server config for permanent access, or pasting token for session-only. It also instructs how to call with or without the 'token' argument, leaving no ambiguity.
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 broadly distinct role—auth, status, marketplace, version, toolkit info, and the domain query. However, `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection state, and `marketplace` bundles many sub-operations (search, invoke, install, prompts) into one tool, which can blur boundaries.
Naming is inconsistent: platform tools mix verb-led names (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) with noun-led names (marketplace, toolkit_info), and the single domain tool uses a Portuguese noun-based phrase (vinculos_societarios_consultar). This mixing of language and pattern makes the set feel arbitrary.
The server is named 'Vínculos Societários' but only one of seven tools is domain-specific; the other six are generic platform management tools that could belong to any MCP server. The domain tool count is too thin, while the meta-tool count is oversized relative to the stated purpose.
For the domain of corporate relationship lookup, only a single consult operation is provided. There are no supporting tools for data preview, history, export, or related searches, and no obvious operations to complement the core query. The platform helpers do not contribute to domain coverage.