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 clarifies the tool's behavior: no args returns a link, token input enables session login. It adds context about permanent vs session connections beyond the annotations, which already indicate idempotent and non-destructive.
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-loads the purpose, but it's a bit dense with multiple clauses. Still, every sentence provides 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 simple tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers the main scenarios: getting a link, pasting a token, and recommending permanent config. It could be clearer about the agent's workflow but is generally complete.
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 a 'token' string with no description. The description explains the token's role, that it's optional, and the alternative of calling with no args. This significantly compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
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 the MCP.AI server via browser login and access token. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on authentication and provides specific usage modes.
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 explains the two ways to authenticate (permanent header config vs session token) and the exact invocation patterns (with/without token). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool compared to sibling 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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, and authenticate also deals with credentials. The marketplace tool is a catch-all for many actions (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, etc.), making it hard to predict what it does from its name alone. The domain-specific tool (mpmt_procedimentos_consultar) is distinct, but the platform tools blur together.
Naming is inconsistent across the set: verb_noun (show_version, report_bug), bare verbs (connect, authenticate), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese phrase (mpmt_procedimentos_consultar). There is no coherent pattern in style or language, making the tool names feel ad hoc.
At 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but one tool (marketplace) is overloaded with dozens of sub-actions, making the real surface much larger and harder to grasp. The server mixes platform administration tools with a single domain operation, which feels unbalanced for its stated focus on procedures.
For the domain of consulting public ministry procedures, the single consultation tool is functional but minimal—there are no related operations like history, PDF export, or batch queries. The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) cover administration broadly, but the overall purpose of the server is unclear, making it hard to assess whether gaps exist.