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 indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by explaining the permanent vs. session-only nature of the login, which implies state changes but does not explicitly disclose side effects. Given the annotations already cover safety, the description provides sufficient transparency.
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 concise yet informative, covering both usage methods and invocation syntax without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured, though slightly dense with multiple clauses.
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?
The description provides enough context to successfully use the tool, including two workflows and the meaning of the token parameter. It does not mention return values, but the lack of an output schema makes that acceptable. Overall, it is complete for its purpose.
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 single optional 'token' parameter is explained: it is used for session-only login when pasted, and its absence triggers retrieval of the login link. This clarifies its role, even though the schema lacks a description, so the description compensates well.
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: authentication for MCP.AI IDE agents, with explicit instruction to log in and copy an access token. It distinguishes from sibling tools like connect or show_version by focusing solely on authentication.
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 provides concrete usage alternatives: adding the token to config for a permanent connection, or passing it as a parameter for session-only login. It also explains how to invoke with or without arguments, giving clear guidance on when to use each method.
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 in purpose: authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info, and the domain-specific mpt_ba_cnf_consultar. There is minor overlap between connect (returns connection status and URLs) and toolkit_info (returns toolkit state including connection status), but each has a broader scope, so confusion is unlikely.
Tool names are inconsistent: most are English single-word or camelCase (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), while the only domain-specific tool is in Portuguese with underscores (mpt_ba_cnf_consultar). This mix of languages and conventions breaks the pattern.
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range. However, most are generic MCP.AI platform support tools, with only one tool directly serving the stated domain (Certidão Negativa). This slightly dilutes the server's apparent purpose but is not excessive.
For the domain of querying negative certificates, the single mpt_ba_cnf_consultar tool covers the core operation, and the supporting platform tools handle auth, connection, and state. There are no obvious missing operations for a simple query service, though one might expect a history or listing tool, which is absent.