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?
Adds useful context about permanent, non-expiring connections vs session-only logins, and the two calling patterns. Annotations already declare idempotent and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like token revocation or exact response behavior.
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 moderately concise, using a 'Best' vs 'Or' structure to clearly separate options. It is a bit dense and the opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' could be clearer, but every sentence adds necessary information.
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 the tool's medium complexity (two login modes), the description covers both flows well, including the exact call format and configuration guidance. However, it does not describe the return value or error handling, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains the single 'token' parameter, showing exactly how to pass it and the behavioral difference when omitted. This compensates for the schema's lack of description.
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 MCP.AI for IDE agents via browser login and token, with explicit instructions for retrieving a link or passing a JWT. It identifies the resource and action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'connect' tool.
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?
Provides detailed guidance on when to use which mode: permanent configuration via header vs session-only token, and clarifies that calling with no args returns a link. This is strong usage instruction, though it lacks an explicit 'when not to use this tool' or comparison to alternatives.
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 handles login, connect shows connection status, marketplace is a catalog/execution platform, and mpf_certidao_consultar is the domain operation. Confusion could arise between marketplace's invoke functionality and the direct tool, and between connect and toolkit_info, but detailed descriptions mitigate ambiguity.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools are single-word verbs (authenticate, connect), some use snake_case with verbs (report_bug, show_version), and others are noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, and mpf_certidao_consultar stands out as a domain-specific name among generic platform names.
With 7 tools, the count is not inherently excessive, but the server is named 'Certidão MPF' and only one tool actually relates to that domain. The other six are generic platform utilities, making the toolset feel bloated for its apparent purpose. A more focused server would have just the certidão tool or additional related domain tools.
For the specific operation of querying a certidão, the single tool mpf_certidao_consultar is complete as it provides the necessary functionality. However, the server's broader purpose is unclear—it includes platform-level tools that do not serve a unified domain, so there are potential gaps if a user expects related certidão operations or management features beyond a simple query.