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?
The description discloses key behaviors: calling with no args returns a link, passing a token performs login, and adding to config yields a permanent connection. It does not contradict the idempotentHint annotation, and it mentions the side effect of permanent configuration.
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 verbose but well-structured, dividing into permanent vs. session scenarios. It provides necessary details without redundancy, though it could be tightened.
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 the simplicity of the tool (one optional param, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it. It implies return values (link or success) but does not explicitly state error handling or output format, which is acceptable for this context.
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 only parameter 'token' is explained in the description: it is the JWT to be passed for session login. The description covers the parameter's usage and purpose, fully compensating for the lack of schema description.
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 handle authentication via token, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace'. It explains the login process and the two modes (permanent via config, session via token).
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 explicit usage instructions: either add the token to the server config for permanent access, or pass the token as a parameter for session login, or call with no args to receive a login link. It implies when to use it (when authentication is needed) but doesn't explicitly state a prerequisite like 'use before other tools'.
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 (auth, connection status, marketplace, bug reporting, version, toolkit state, and the CAR query). Some ambiguity exists between `marketplace` and `toolkit_info` (both deal with tool listings) and between `authenticate` and `connect` (both relate to connections), but detailed descriptions mitigate confusion. Overall, an agent can usually pick the right tool.
Names follow a consistent snake_case style, but the pattern is mixed: some are imperative verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`, `report_bug`, `show_version`), some are noun phrases (`marketplace`, `toolkit_info`), and one is domain-specific (`car_imovel_consultar`). This inconsistency is readable but less predictable than a uniform verb_noun pattern.
At 7 tools, the count is within the typical 3-15 range. However, the server's stated purpose is the CAR domain, yet only one tool is CAR-specific; the rest are generic platform utilities. While the count itself is reasonable, the mix feels somewhat bloated for a specialized server, though not extreme.
For the CAR domain, the single `car_imovel_consultar` tool covers the apparent need for querying property information, but there are no additional operations like listing or updating. The generic tools (marketplace, etc.) are complete for platform management, but the domain surface feels thin, especially given the server's name. No obvious dead ends for the primary use case, but the coverage is minimal.