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, non-destructive, and not read-only. The description adds context about the login flow, the two usage modes, and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral details beyond the structured data, though it stops short of describing response handling or side effects.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and structured to clearly separate permanent vs. session options. It is a bit dense but every sentence adds necessary information, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers usage, parameter semantics, and alternatives. It does not mention return values or error scenarios, but those are not critical for an authentication tool. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 schema has one parameter 'token' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining the token is a JWT, how to pass it in the call, and that omitting the argument triggers a link response. This goes well beyond the bare 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 to the MCP server by logging in through the browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly covering authentication flow, including both permanent (config header) and session-only (token parameter) methods.
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 explicit guidance on when to use each approach: adding the token to server config for a permanent connection vs. pasting it for session-only login. It also explains calling with no args to retrieve the login link. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
marketplace and search_tools both provide search/describe/invoke capabilities for the MCP catalog, creating significant overlap. Additionally, connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, leading to boundary confusion between these pairs.
All tool names use lowercase with underscores, but the structural pattern varies: one-word verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), and verb_noun compounds (report_bug, search_tools, show_version, toolkit_info). This is readable but lacks a consistent convention.
Seven tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for this platform management server, and each tool earns its place in the workflow without feeling bloated or sparse.
The toolkit covers authentication, connection status, catalog discovery/execution, installation/subscription (through marketplace actions), feedback, and versioning. Minor gaps exist in dedicated management operations, but core lifecycle coverage is strong.