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 behavioral details beyond annotations, explaining that calling with no args returns a login link and that the config method yields a 'permanent, non-expiring connection.' It could further explain side effects of repeated calls or token overwriting, but it provides solid context.
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 two sentences long and packed with actionable information, though the second sentence is a bit run-on and could be split for readability.
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 an authentication tool with a single optional parameter, the description covers both usage modes and the resulting behaviors (link, session vs permanent). It lacks only explicit error handling or state-reset info, which is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT to be pasted, and the no-arg call for a link. This fully compensates for the missing schema description.
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 as the authentication entry point for MCP.AI IDE agents, explaining both browser login and token usage. It differentiates from siblings like 'connect' by focusing solely on obtaining/using an auth token.
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?
It provides explicit instructions on when to call with no args (to get the link) and when to pass a token (after the user pastes it). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full alternatives coverage.
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 server mixes platform-level tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) with a single data tool (detran_pr_multas_extrato_consultar). There is a clear distinction between platform management and the domain tool, but the platform tools overlap slightly (e.g., authenticate vs connect vs toolkit_info all relate to login/status), causing some ambiguity about when to use each.
Tool names are inconsistent: some are single verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), some are compound nouns (toolkit_info, marketplace), and the domain tool uses a verbose snake_case pattern with a prefix (detran_pr_multas_extrato_consultar). This mix makes it hard to predict naming conventions.
The server includes 7 tools, but most are generic platform utilities (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) that are not specific to the DETRAN domain. Only one tool provides the actual data service, making the set feel bloated with unrelated functionality and thin on domain-specific value.
For the stated domain of DETRAN PR fines (Multas), only one tool exists for consultation. There are no tools for listing multiple vehicles, checking fine details, appealing, or paying fines. The platform tools are not domain-relevant, leaving a significant gap in the expected operational coverage.