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 and non-destructive. Description explains token handling and session/permanent behavior. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose. Efficient structure.
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?
Covers main usage scenarios. No output schema, but description suffices. Complete enough for a simple authentication 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?
Only one parameter 'token', description explains its purpose for session login. Schema coverage 0%, so description adds necessary meaning.
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 it's for authentication, explaining token-based login for IDE agents. It distinguishes two methods: config-based permanent and session-only paste.
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 explicit guidance on when to use config vs pasting, and calling with no args to get link. Does not compare to sibling tools, but siblings are unrelated.
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.
Some tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., authenticate vs connect, marketplace vs toolkit_info), but descriptions help differentiate. The domain-specific tools (cnpj_consultar, cnpj_processos) are distinct from generic utilities.
Mixed naming conventions: snake_case (cnpj_consultar, cnpj_processos), camelCase (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and lowercase (authenticate, connect, marketplace). No consistent pattern.
Only 2 of 8 tools are domain-specific (CNPJ); the other 6 are generic platform utilities (auth, connection, marketplace, etc.) that inflate the count and misalign with the server's stated purpose.
For the CNPJ domain, only consult and process search are provided. Missing CRUD operations, CPF lookup, or other Brazilian registry data, leaving significant gaps.