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?
Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: the login flow, token types, permanent vs session-only connection, and the behavior when called with no arguments. No contradictions with annotations.
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, somewhat long run-on sentence, but every clause carries essential information. It is slightly dense but not bloated, and the structure could be improved with clearer separation of the two modes, but it remains efficient.
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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers all usage paths: permanent config, session token, and no-args. It also explains the meaning of the returned link and the token. No gaps remain for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 token as an optional string with no description. The description fully compensates by explaining that token is the JWT to paste for session-only login, and that omitting it returns the login link. This is complete semantic coverage for the single 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 states the tool's purpose: to authenticate IDE agents by logging in via browser and copying an access token. It provides two distinct usage modes (permanent via config header, session-only via token), which thoroughly differentiates it from siblings 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?
The description gives explicit instructions on how and when to use it: for permanent use add to config, for session-only pass token, and with no args to get the link. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear for most usage scenarios.
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 separate jobs (login, status, search, consult, version), but connect and toolkit_info both report connection/installation state, and marketplace internally mentions report_bug while report_bug is also a standalone tool. These overlaps create some ambiguity, though descriptions are detailed enough to mostly distinguish them.
The naming follows no consistent convention: authenticate/connect are bare verbs, report_bug/show_version use verb_noun, toolkit_info/marketplace are noun-based, and the domain tool is a Portuguese-style mixed name. This makes the set feel inconsistent and harder to predict.
Seven tools is within a reasonable range and none are redundant enough to cut. However, only one tool is domain-specific for the certificate lookup, while the rest are generic platform utilities, making the count feel slightly inflated relative to the server's stated purpose.
The core certificate query is covered, along with authentication, connection status, and feedback/version utilities. There are no obvious dead ends for a read-only consultation workflow, though there is no history, export, or multi-certificate variant, which are minor gaps.