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, not destructive, not read-only), the description discloses important behavioral traits: a config token is permanent and non-expiring, while a pasted token is session-only. It also reveals that calling with no args returns the login link. This adds meaningful context about session vs. permanent authentication and side effects, though it could further clarify what happens after login (e.g., connection state).
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 a single cohesive paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then explains two usage modes. Every sentence contributes useful information, and it avoids unnecessary filler. It is slightly long but appropriate for the auth flow it describes.
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 auth tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the full workflow: obtaining the token via browser, configuring it in the server config for permanence, or passing it as a session token. It also explains no-arg behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invocation.
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 defines an optional 'token' string with no description. The description compensates by explaining the token parameter: it should be a JWT pasted by the user, and the tool can also be called with no arguments to get the link. This gives clear semantics for the parameter and the no-arg invocation, well beyond the 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 states the tool's purpose: to authenticate IDE agents to MCP.AI by either generating a login link or accepting a pasted token. It uses specific verbs like 'log in' and 'copy the access token,' and explains the resource (MCP.AI server). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect,' so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.
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 clear context for usage: it targets IDE agents (Cursor, etc.) and gives two usage paths—config-based permanent token or session-only token via this tool. It explains when to call with no args (to get the link) versus with a token (to complete login). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the guidance is actionable and context-rich.
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: authenticate, connect, ibama_debitos_consultar, report_bug, show_version, and toolkit_info are all separate functions. The only minor overlap is that marketplace can also run tools like ibama_debitos_consultar, but its description makes clear it's a catalog/discovery mechanism.
Tool names are inconsistent: some are simple verbs (authenticate, connect), some are noun-based (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one is a long Portuguese snake_case name (ibama_debitos_consultar). This mixing of languages and patterns creates a lack of predictability.
The count of 7 is reasonable, but the majority (six of seven) are generic platform maintenance tools rather than domain-specific ones. For a server allegedly focused on IBAMA debts, the tool set feels bloated with unrelated utilities, though the count itself is not excessive.
For the sole domain function of issuing environmental debt certificates, ibama_debitos_consultar covers the core query but makes no provision for other related operations like validating a certificate, listing historical consultations, or managing credits directly. The platform tools fill some gaps (authentication, payment links) but the domain surface is incomplete.