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 idempotent but not read-only or destructive. Description adds critical behavioral details: it provides a login link, accepts a token for session-only login, and notes permanent config option. Does not contradict annotations; goes beyond by explaining effects of different inputs.
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?
Description is moderately concise, packed with instructions but in a single paragraph. It front-loads purpose and audience, then details. Could be broken into steps for readability, but 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?
Given no output schema and minimal annotations, description provides substantial guidance on usage scenarios Strings. Covers both setup methods and edge cases (no args vs. token), making it sufficiently complete for an auth tool.
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 parameter 'token' with no description (coverage 0%). Description compensates by explaining what token is (JWT) and how to provide it (paste it). This adds meaning beyond the bare 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 that the tool authenticates the user to the MCP server by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only auth-related tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with others.
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?
Provides clear context on when to use: for IDE agents to authenticate. It explains two workflows (config-based permanent vs. session-based) and when to call with token vs. without, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references.
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.
The World Cup tools (worldcup_bracket, worldcup_groups, worldcup_matches, etc.) are clearly distinct with specific usage examples. The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are also distinct, though connect and toolkit_info have some overlap in reporting connection status. Overall, agents should select the correct tool with minimal ambiguity.
The eight World Cup tools follow a consistent 'worldcup_<noun>' pattern, but the six platform tools use mixed conventions: verbs (authenticate, connect), noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and verb_noun (report_bug, show_version). This inconsistency across the two groups hurts overall coherence, even though each group is internally consistent.
With 14 tools, the count is within the recommended range. It covers both the platform management surface (6 tools) and the World Cup data domain (8 tools). The number feels justified for the server's dual purpose, though it could be seen as slightly heavy for a single focused use case.
The World Cup tools provide comprehensive coverage: teams, groups, matches, results, schedule, standings, bracket, and venues—no obvious gaps for a tournament information server. The platform tools cover auth, connection, marketplace, version, bug reporting, and toolkit state, which is complete for their purpose. Minor missing features like player stats or news are not essential.