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 explains the two modes: permanent via config header and session-only via token parameter, and notes that calling with no args returns a link. It does not explicitly mention idempotency or all side effects, but the annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns reasonably without contradicting.
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 moderately verbose but well-structured, presenting the primary use case (config header) and alternative token-based login in a logical sequence. It avoids redundancy and is reasonably concise for the information conveyed.
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?
The tool has annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true) and a description that explains the parameters and behavior. However, it lacks details about the response when called with a token versus no args, and does not handle error cases or clarify the config method as separate from the tool call. Still, it provides enough context for an agent to use it.
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 description effectively documents the single 'token' parameter: it explains that it expects a JWT when provided, and that omitting it returns a link. Although the schema lacks descriptions (0% coverage), the tool's description compensates with clear usage instructions.
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: authenticating an IDE agent to MCP.AI. It explains the two modes: adding a header to the config for permanent access, or passing a token for a session-only login. This is concise and unambiguous.
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 explicitly provides usage instructions: either add a Bearer token as a header in the server config, or call the tool with a token parameter, or with no args to obtain a login link. It also specifies the expected behavior for each usage scenario.
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.
Several tools have overlapping responsibilities: connect and toolkit_info both report connection/status details, and marketplace includes report_bug and list_tools functionality that duplicates dedicated tools. Only der_sp_multas_consultar has a clearly unique domain purpose.
Tool names mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), snake_case domain terms (der_sp_multas_consultar), and noun-style commands (marketplace, toolkit_info), with no consistent verb_noun convention. The naming feels ad hoc rather than patterned.
Seven tools is within a reasonable numeric range, but the server's scope is split between one domain-specific query and several generic platform utilities. The marketplace tool also packs many suboperations into a single megatool, making the apparent tool count misleading.
For a server named 'Multas e Recursos', the only domain tool is a single consultation action; there is no appeal/recursos workflow or broader fine lifecycle coverage. The remaining tools are platform management utilities rather than domain features.