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 adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it reveals that no-args returns an authentication link, that pasted tokens are session-only, and that config tokens are permanent and non-expiring. This is valuable context for an idempotent, non-destructive auth tool. It does not contradict the 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 compact yet information-dense. Both sentences earn their place: the first establishes context and the login flow, the second clearly lays out the two configuration/login options. The 'Best:' and 'Or' structure makes the alternatives easy to parse.
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?
For a simple one-parameter authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow: browser login, token acquisition, permanent config setup, session-only token usage, and no-args behavior. It could mention success/error responses or what happens after the session token is accepted, but it is largely complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the semantic burden for the 'token' parameter. It clearly explains that token is an optional JWT and describes the two call patterns: with a token for session login, or with no args to receive a link. This is sufficient for the single optional parameter.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: authenticating to MCP.AI for IDE agents, with concrete steps for logging in and obtaining a token. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'connect', though the focus on browser login and token acquisition makes the purpose reasonably distinct.
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 gives explicit guidance on two usage modes: adding the token to server config for a permanent connection, or pasting a session-only token. It also explains when to pass a token versus call with no arguments. It does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it against sibling 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.
The one domain tool, comprot_processo_consultar, is clearly distinct, but authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info overlap around connection/auth status. The marketplace tool also absorbs behaviors (report_bug, list_tools, install) that partially duplicate standalone tools, creating boundary confusion despite detailed descriptions.
Tool names mix styles: English verbs (authenticate, connect), noun-only names (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb-noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), and one Portuguese snake_case domain tool (comprot_processo_consultar). There is no uniform convention, making the set feel inconsistent.
Seven tools is not excessive, but the set bundles a single actual domain/query tool with a generic MCP platform shell dominated by marketplace and connection utilities. The count is workable, yet the packaging feels unfocused for a server named 'Comprot: Processo'.
The platform side is reasonably covered: authentication, connection status, marketplace-based install/invoke, version, bug reporting, and toolkit state are all present. However, the Processo domain itself is reduced to one generic consult tool, with no explicit support for related case actions or follow-ups.