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 detail beyond the annotations: no-args returns a login link, providing a token gives session-only authentication, and the config header yields a permanent connection. It also identifies the token as a JWT. It does not disclose token expiry, error handling, or whether pasted tokens are persisted, but the main modes are transparent.
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 and each adds substantial value: audience context, recommended permanent setup, and the two call modes. The opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' is slightly verbose, but overall the structure is efficient and front-loaded.
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 optional-token authentication tool, the description covers the main flows well. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not state what a successful token call returns, what errors may occur, or whether the generated link expires. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.
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 provides only 'token' as an untyped optional string with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain that token is a JWT, optional, and used when the user pastes it, while omitting it produces the login link. This is helpful, though it stops short of explaining token validation or failure behavior.
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: it instructs the user to log in, copy the access token, and then either configure it as a header or pass it as a JWT. It goes beyond the name by specifying the resource and two invocation modes. However, it does not crisply distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'connect' or provide a single-sentence function statement.
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 explicitly explains when to call with no arguments ('with no args to get the link') and when to pass a token ('call with { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes'). It also recommends the permanent config-header route over the session-only paste route. It lacks explicit mention of when not to use the tool or comparison with alternate tools like 'connect'.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct: authenticate, connect, and toolkit_info all relate to connection/status but with different focuses. However, marketplace is a meta-tool that overlaps with the server's purpose (it can invoke other MCPs, including possibly similar ones), and report_bug/show_version are generic utilities. The main domain tool, jucesp_ficha_completa_consultar, is clearly distinct, but the presence of marketplace creates ambiguity about whether to use it or the native tool.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (jucesp_ficha_completa_consultar), others are single words (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info). There's no consistent verb_noun pattern; the main tool is descriptive but the rest are generic and don't follow a clear convention.
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable, but the set is bloated with meta-tools (marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) that are not specific to the JUCESP domain. The actual domain-specific tool is just one, which feels thin for a server named 'JUCESP: Ficha Cadastral Completa'. The count is borderline: not too many, but the scope is diluted.
The server's stated purpose is to provide a complete company registration record (ficha cadastral completa), but it only offers a single query tool (jucesp_ficha_completa_consultar). There are no tools for related operations like listing companies, validating data, or handling multiple query types (e.g., by CNPJ, NIRE, or name are all in one tool, but no pagination or batch). The rest of the tools are platform utilities, not domain coverage, so the domain surface is severely incomplete.