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?
Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses important behaviors: calling with no args returns a login link, calling with a token performs session login, and config header creates a permanent connection. This adds useful workflow 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?
Three dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and audience. Each sentence contributes unique information, though the config-header detail adds some length. Overall efficient and well-structured.
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 a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary call modes and expected link response. It lacks explicit return/error semantics, but the low complexity keeps this gap minor.
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 only lists a bare `token` string with no description. The description compensates well by explaining the token is a JWT pasted by the user, how to pass it, and the no-args case. This is meaningful guidance despite 0% schema coverage.
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 MCP.AI for IDE agents, with explicit actions: getting a login link or using a token. It is specific about the resource (MCP.AI auth) but does not differentiate from sibling tools like connect.
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 explains two distinct usage modes: permanent setup via config header and session-only login via token or no-args link. The intended users (IDE agents) are stated, but no alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.
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.
authenticate and connect overlap on credential/connection territory, and marketplace is an overloaded mega-tool that also contains report_bug, list_tools, install, subscribe, and connect-related flows, duplicating several dedicated tools. Only dprf_nada_consta_consultar has a clearly unique, non-overlapping purpose.
The tool names are a mix of English imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), English noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long Portuguese resource-style name (dprf_nada_consta_consultar). There is no consistent verb_noun or language pattern to guide an agent's selection.
Seven tools is not a large count, but only one tool is actually domain-specific to the DPRF Nada Consta purpose. The other six are generic platform/management tools, so the server feels like a broad platform with a single domain query bolted on rather than a focused domain MCP.
The core flow is covered: authenticate/connect for access, dprf_nada_consta_consultar for the actual inqueria, and marketplace for payment/top-up. There is no deeper history or detail-level management surface, but for a read-only official consultation service the primary workflow is present.