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 discloses behaviors not covered by annotations: the permanent, non-expiring connection when adding to server config, and the session-only nature of token use. It also implies side effects (modifying server config) and provides a recommendation ('Best:').
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 reasonably concise but slightly redundant in the opening sentence ('MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.): log in in the browser, copy the access token') and repeats the 'call with token or no args' idea. Still, it is well-structured with clear two-option flow.
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 description is complete for an authentication tool: it covers both authentication flows, their consequences, and the input parameter. No output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Given the simple complexity, all needed context is present.
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 lists one optional 'token' parameter with no description. The tool description explains that providing it authenticates with that token, while omitting it yields a login link, giving full semantic meaning to the parameter.
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: to authenticate by either providing a token or generating a login link. It is distinct from sibling tools (connect, show_version, etc.) and specifies the authentication mechanism.
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 usage instructions: call with a token to authenticate, or with no arguments to get the login link. It also distinguishes between permanent (server config) and session-only authentication, effectively telling when each mode is appropriate.
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.
Most platform tools have clear distinct roles, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection/account state, and marketplace also handles credentials and connect links, creating overlap. The single ECRVSP domain tool is clearly distinct, but the auth/connection/state cluster is not fully separated.
Tool names mix English imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) with noun-style names (marketplace, toolkit_info) and one Portuguese object-verb name (ecrvsp_docs_emplacamento_consultar). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern or language convention across the set.
Seven tools is not inherently excessive, but six of the seven are generic platform utilities rather than ECRVSP domain functionality. Only one tool actually serves the server's stated purpose, so the count is misaligned with the domain.
For a paid consult-only service, the core lookup operation exists and auth/credit concerns are handled by platform tools. There are no obvious missing operations for the narrow domain, though a listing or document-type-checking tool would be a minor enhancement.