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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the permanent vs session-only modes, the no-args behavior to get the link, and the token-based login. It doesn't contradict the annotations and mostly clarifies the tool's 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence adds use-case value. It is slightly run-on and informal with phrases like 'Best:' but remains compact and structured well for its content.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description does not specify what is returned when a token is submitted, only implying a session login. It covers the main auth flow and token parameter, but the missing return/response detail makes it incomplete for an agent needing to handle the result.
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 input schema only describes 'token' as an optional string with no explanation, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining the token is a JWT, when to provide it, and that omitting it returns the login link.
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 authenticates to MCP.AI via browser login and token exchange, using specific actions like 'log in' and 'copy the access token'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'connect', so it falls short of a perfect 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?
The description gives explicit usage alternatives: 'Best' for permanent config header vs session-only paste, and no-args for getting the link. It provides clear when-to-use scenarios, though it doesn't mention alternative 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 platform tools are mostly distinguishable, but 'authenticate' and 'connect' have overlapping auth/connection concerns, and 'marketplace' bundles many unrelated capabilities into one oversized tool. The single DETRAN domain tool is clear, but the surrounding meta-tools make the server's purpose ambiguous.
Naming mixes styles and languages: verb-only names like 'connect' and 'authenticate', English noun names like 'marketplace' and 'toolkit_info', and Portuguese snake_case like 'detran_ba_multas_consultar'. There is no consistent verb_noun or naming convention across the set.
Seven tools is not inherently excessive, but six of them are generic platform-management utilities unrelated to the DETRAN BA Multas domain. The server effectively offers only one domain tool, making the count misleading and poorly scoped for its stated purpose.
The only domain operation is consulting DETRAN BA fines, with no broader fine lifecycle coverage such as payment, dispute, or vehicle-related queries. The remaining tools address platform infrastructure rather than filling domain gaps, so the server is severely incomplete as a DETRAN-oriented tool surface.