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 context beyond annotations: it explains that the token is a JWT, that using it results in a session-only login, and that calling with no args returns a link. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true) and clarifies the login side effects.
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 informative but slightly verbose, starting with an odd preface ('MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)') and weaving a long sentence. However, it efficiently packs key usage details and is structured around the two login pathways.
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 authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential scenarios: obtaining a link, token-based login, and permanent configuration. It could mention what happens post-authentication (e.g., success response), but it is adequate 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter: it expects a JWT token pasted by the user, and that omitting it will retrieve a login link. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema definition.
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 with the MCP server by either providing a JWT token or getting a login link. It explicitly mentions the browser login flow and the two invocation modes, distinguishing it from any sibling tools which do not overlap.
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 explicit usage guidance: for permanent connections, add the token to config; for session-only, call with the token; to obtain the link, call with no args. It clearly delineates when to use each mode and even advises the best approach ('Best: add it to this server's config').
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 have overlapping boundaries: authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all deal with authentication/connection status, and marketplace also reports installation/connection state while acting as a catch-all action tool. The single domain-specific tool is clear, but an agent could easily misselect between the platform meta-tools.
The naming is a mix of single English verbs (authenticate, connect), snake_case English (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), a single noun (marketplace), and one long Portuguese snake_case domain name (ecrvsp_docs_t_proprietario_consultar). There is no consistent verb_noun or language convention across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but most of them are generic platform boilerplate (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) plus an extremely broad marketplace meta-tool. The actual domain is served by only one tool, so the set feels padded rather than purpose-built.
For the stated purpose of consulting a Transferência de Proprietário document, the single consultation tool covers the core action, and the surrounding tools cover authentication, connection status, payment/top-up via marketplace, and bug reporting. Minor gaps like explicit query history or credit balance are workable through marketplace and toolkit_info.