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 reveals practical behavior beyond annotations: token format ('<jwt>'), session-only versus persistent config-based auth, and the no-arguments behavior of returning the login link. It states that config-header auth is 'permanent, non-expiring', which is useful context not derivable from idempotentHint or readOnlyHint.
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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose before providing actionable details. It contains several semicolon-connected clauses, making it slightly dense but every part adds usable guidance.
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?
Given there is no output schema and a single optional parameter, the description is sufficient for an agent to both select this tool and use each invocation mode. It covers persistent, session, and no-argument cases. It does not explicitly state return values in detail, but 'get the link' is enough for this simple auth flow.
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 a bare optional 'token' string with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the token is pasted after user login, is expected to be a JWT, and that omitting it returns the login link. This fully resolves the meaning and behavior of the only parameter.
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 this as an authentication tool: users log in through the browser and supply an access token as a JWT, or retrieve a login link with no arguments. It is specific about the resource (MCP.AI server for IDE agents) but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like 'connect'.
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 provides explicit onboarding guidance: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header' for permanent access, 'Or paste it here for a session-only login', and 'or with no args to get the link'. It clearly tells an agent how to invoke different modes, though it does not name alternative tools to use instead.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, protocol consultation, marketplace access, bug reporting, version info, and toolkit state. No two tools appear to do the same thing, though connect and toolkit_info both report connection-related information.
Names mix lowercase verbs (authenticate, connect), underscore-separated verbs (report_bug, show_version), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a long snake_case domain-specific name (jucesp_redesim_protocolo_consultar). The conventions are inconsistent and do not follow a single pattern.
7 tools is a reasonable count for a platform server that includes both domain-specific functionality and administrative utilities. It is within the typical 3-15 range, though the presence of generic marketplace and utility tools alongside a single domain tool makes the scope slightly mixed.
The server's stated domain is JUCESP REDESIM protocol tracking, but it offers only one consultation tool (jucesp_redesim_protocolo_consultar) with no list, update, or cancel operations. The remaining tools are platform-level utilities, so the domain-specific surface is severely limited for a dedicated server.