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 already indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context about the two authentication flows (permanent vs session-only), the browser interaction requirement, and the use of a bearer token. It does not describe the response or side effects beyond login, but for a simple auth tool this is adequate.
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 three sentences, information-dense without fluff. It could be better structured with bullet points, but it remains readable and each clause provides essential information about how to authenticate.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios: obtaining a link and using a token. It also explains the permanent config approach, which is useful context for agents. It does not specify the exact response or error behaviors, but these are not critical for a straightforward auth action.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the 'token' parameter has no description. The description compensates by explaining that token should be a JWT and that it is optional (calling with no args yields a link). This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema type of string.
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 identifies the tool as an authentication mechanism for IDE agents, specifying the verb 'log in' and the resource (MCP.AI access). It distinguishes between permanent (config header) and session-only (token paste) authentication, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 instructions: call with no args to get a login link, or call with a JWT token for session login. It also recommends adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'connect' to state when one should be used over the other.
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 distinct purposes: authenticate handles login tokens, connect shows status, fgts_regularidade_consultar performs the actual FGTS query, and report_bug/show_version/toolkit_info are clearly separate. However, authenticate and connect both deal with authentication/connection status, and marketplace overlaps somewhat with toolkit_info in listing available tools, creating minor ambiguity.
Naming is highly inconsistent: tools mix bare verbs (connect, authenticate), snake_case with a Portuguese verb at the end (fgts_regularidade_consultar), compound nouns (toolkit_info, marketplace), and verb_noun styles with underscores (report_bug, show_version). No consistent pattern or language convention is followed.
Seven tools is a reasonable number for a server, but the set feels like a grab-bag of platform management utilities rather than a cohesive domain. Given the server name 'Regularidade FGTS', most tools are unrelated to FGTS, making the scope feel bloated with generic infrastructure tools and underweighted on actual FGTS functionality.
For a server ostensibly about FGTS certificates, only one tool (fgts_regularidade_consultar) addresses that domain, leaving no other operations like validation, history, or batch processing. The platform tools are complete for managing MCPs, but they don't contribute to the stated FGTS purpose, creating a significant gap in domain coverage.