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 already signal readonly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds valuable details about the two auth flows (config-based and session-based) and the behavior of returning a link when called with no arguments. This goes beyond basic annotation coverage.
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 concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It uses clear sentences to explain both permanent and session-based auth. It is slightly dense but every sentence adds essential information.
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 simple schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality: authentication flow, token usage, and session vs. permanent options. It does not detail return values, but for a login tool the main outcome is implied.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the 'token' parameter: it is an optional JWT used for session-only login, and calling without it returns a link. This compensates completely for the schema's lack of detail.
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 this is an authentication tool for IDE agents, with specific instructions on browser login and token handling. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'connect', so it falls short of a 5.
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 how to use the tool: adding a token to config for permanent access, or pasting it for session-only login. It also explains calling with no args to get a link. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives.
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 clear, distinct purpose, and the descriptions prevent direct overlap. The only slight ambiguity is between authenticate and connect, but both are adequately differentiated. However, the mix of generic platform tools with a single domain tool may confuse an agent about which to use for certificate tasks.
Tool names are highly inconsistent: some are verbs (authenticate, connect), some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), one is a long Portuguese snake_case (certidao_debitos_pf_consultar), and others mix verb_noun patterns (report_bug, show_version). The language mixing and lack of a uniform convention make the naming chaotic.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range, but the server's name suggests a focused domain service, and only one tool actually serves that domain. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the count feel bloated for the apparent purpose and creating a scope mismatch.
For the stated domain of certidão de débitos, only a single consult operation is provided, with no supporting tools for history, downloads, or related management. The platform utilities do not address domain-specific gaps, leaving the coverage severely incomplete for the server's implied purpose.