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 idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical context: it explains that calling with no args returns a link, that pasting a token enables session-only login, and that adding to config gives non-expiring access. This goes beyond annotations, clarifying the tool's behavior in different usage scenarios.
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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the audience and main action, then provides clear branching options. Every sentence adds value, and it's concise for the complexity.
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 complexity (multiple authentication methods) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to use it in each mode, prerequisites (browser login), and alternatives. It's complete and self-contained.
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 token parameter has 0% schema coverage, but the description explains its meaning: it's the JWT to paste for session login. However, it doesn't mention that token is optional (since required is 0) explicitly, but the description implies that by saying 'or with no args', which is adequate.
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 is for authentication, providing a login link or accepting a token. It distinguishes from siblings by being the only auth-related tool among them, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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 detailed when-to-use guidance: it explains the two modes (permanent via config header, session-only via token), when to call with no args (to get link), and when to call with token (after user pastes). It even mentions best practice for permanent connection, which is explicit and actionable.
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 overlap around connectivity and platform state: authenticate, connect, toolkit_info, and marketplace all deal with credentials, installation status, or invocation routes. The single domain tool, detran_sc_veiculo_consultar, is clear, but the surrounding platform utilities create boundary confusion.
Names mix bare verbs (connect, authenticate), nouns (marketplace), noun compounds (toolkit_info), verb_noun pairs (report_bug, show_version), and a long snake_case domain-prefixed name (detran_sc_veiculo_consultar). There is no consistent pattern across the set.
Seven tools is not inherently excessive, but six of them are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated DETRAN vehicle-extract purpose. This leaves effectively one domain-relevant tool, making the set over-bloated for the apparent scope.
The domain surface is extremely thin: only one DETRAN-specific operation exists, with no complementary vehicle lifecycle tools or even helper queries. The remaining tools address platform management rather than the vehicle domain, so the actual coverage is minimal for the server's name and purpose.