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 this is a safe, non-destructive, idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint false). The description adds context about the non-expiring permanent connection and session-based option, which enrich the behavioral picture without contradicting the annotations. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or invalid token behavior.
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?
Two tight sentences deliver a complete workflow: browser login, token capture, two integration paths, and the fallback to obtain the link. No fluff, all information front-loaded and directly relevant.
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 simple single-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers all user actions, both modes, and the meaning of each parameter. It is self-sufficient for an IDE agent to correctly invoke the tool in any scenario.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the optional 'token' parameter: what it is (a JWT pasted by the user), when to provide it, and that omitting it triggers a login-link response. This is clear and actionable beyond the bare schema.
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 defines the tool's purpose: to authenticate an IDE agent to MCP.AI. It specifies the verb 'log in' and the resource (access token), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing on authentication flow.
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 explicitly explains two usage modes: permanent config via header and session-only via token parameter. It also instructs calling with no args to retrieve a login link, providing unambiguous when-to-use guidance and even a recommended approach.
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 tools have clearly distinct purposes, but `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection/status information, and `authenticate` overlaps with `connect` around credentials, creating potential user confusion.
Tool names are inconsistent in pattern: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), and snake_case compounds with differing grammatical structures (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info, ecrvsp_docs_opcoes_placa_consultar). There is no uniform verb_noun or consistent naming style.
The 7-tool count is within the typical acceptable range, but the server's stated domain (ECRVSP plate options) is served by only one tool, while the other six are generic platform utilities, making the set feel overpopulated with unrelated functionality.
The core domain exposes only a single consult operation (ecrvsp_docs_opcoes_placa_consultar) with no listing, status, or history operations, leaving notable gaps for any workflow beyond a basic query. Platform tools are more complete, but the domain surface is thin.