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?
Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals how the tool behaves: calling with no args returns a login link, calling with a token sets a session, and config-based authentication is permanent and non-expiring. It also implies the tool is non-destructive and idempotent, which aligns with annotations. This contextualizes the auth flow without contradicting 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?
The description is somewhat lengthy but each sentence carries essential information. It is front-loaded with the primary use case and provides concrete steps. The structure could be tidier (e.g., separating config auth from session auth), but it remains concise enough for an agent to parse quickly.
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 tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the main flows (no args → link, with token → session, config → permanent), and mentions the return value ('the link'). It could mention potential error scenarios or the exact response format after token submission, but for an auth tool this is adequate.
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 input schema has a single 'token' field with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining that 'token' should be a JWT for session-only login, and that omitting it retrieves a login link. It also mentions the config header format, offering complete parameter semantics despite the sparse 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's purpose: to authenticate an IDE agent to the MCP.AI server. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI server) and the action (log in, obtain access token). It distinguishes from siblings by detailing the authentication flow, including browser login and token handling, which is unique among the listed tools.
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 usage guidance: it recommends adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection, and explains when to pass the token for session-only login or call with no args to get the login link. It doesn't explicitly exclude sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for this self-contained authentication tool.
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 tool set mixes one domain-specific tool (ceaf_consultar) with several generic MCP platform utilities. There is some overlap between connect and toolkit_info (both report connection status), and marketplace bundles many capabilities, but the detailed descriptions mostly help disambiguate. Still, the distinct purposes are not as clear as they could be.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), some are nouns (marketplace), and two use snake_case (ceaf_consultar, toolkit_info). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, mixing styles across the set.
Seven tools is within the typical range, but the server's name suggests a single-purpose CEAF service. The inclusion of six generic platform tools feels bloated for that specific purpose, though it would be reasonable for a general MCP management server.
For a CEAF consultation service, only ceaf_consultar provides domain functionality; there are no batch lookups, detailed record views, or history features. The remaining tools are unrelated meta-tools, making the surface severely incomplete for the server's apparent domain focus.