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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive. Description adds that calling with no args returns a link, and with token sets session. It explains the non-expiring vs session behavior, complementing annotations.
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, each adding value: purpose, best practice, and alternative usage. Could be slightly more concise but front-loads key info.
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 simple auth tool with no output schema, the description covers both login paths, token usage, and outcome (link). Complete enough for an agent to use 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?
Schema has one optional parameter 'token' with no description. The description explains that it is a JWT token for paste, or omitted to get a link, adding essential meaning beyond the schema.
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 is for authentication, with verb 'log in' and resource 'access token'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'connect' or 'report_bug' by being the only authentication tool.
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 clear guidance on two usage scenarios: permanent config-based login and session-only token paste. It suggests the best practice (config) but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison with siblings.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose. The six general MCP platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are separate from the six Wise-specific query tools (wise_get_balance_statement, wise_list_profiles, etc.). No two tools overlap in functionality.
The Wise-specific tools consistently follow the pattern 'wise_verb_noun' (e.g., wise_get_balance_statement, wise_list_profiles). The general tools use short descriptive names without a prefix, which is a minor inconsistency, but the grouping is logical and readable.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped. It provides sufficient coverage for both the MCP platform utilities and the Wise financial data integration without being bloated or sparse.
The tool set covers the core read operations for Wise (profiles, balances, transactions, card events, activities) and the essential MCP platform functions. Missing are write operations like creating transfers, but the server's focus appears to be data retrieval, so this is a minor gap.