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?
Beyond the annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the main behavioral trait: calling with no args returns a login link, while passing a JWT completes a session login. It does not mention error cases or exact side effects, but for this simple auth flow it provides meaningful behavioral context that annotations don't cover.
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 run-on block that mixes user instructions, configuration advice, and API call details. It contains all necessary information but is not tightly structured; it could be split into clearer sentences or bullets. It is not overly verbose, but it could be more concise.
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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main usage paths: no-args returns a link, token provides session login, and a config header provides permanent login. It omits explicit return value details and error handling, but the tool's low complexity means the description is largely 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?
With schema coverage at 0% and a bare { token } property, the description compensates by explaining that token is an optional JWT and what happens if omitted. It explicitly shows the expected call shape { token: '<jwt>' }, giving the parameter semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb+resource: authenticate to MCP.AI for IDE agents, and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'connect' and 'report_bug'. It also explains the two usage modes (permanent via header config, session via token), making the purpose unmistakable.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use it either with no args to get a login link, or with a token for session-only login. It recommends the config header approach as the 'best' permanent option. It lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives, but the usage context is clear and sufficient.
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 responsibilities, and the certidão query is fully separated from platform operations. The only real ambiguity is between connect and toolkit_info, which both report status/connection-related information, and marketplace overlaps slightly by offering many internal management actions.
The utility names are generally predictable short verbs or noun phrases, but the style is mixed. marketplace is a bare noun, toolkit_info uses an underscore pattern, and mpt_ce_cnf_consultar switches to a Portuguese domain-specific convention, so no single naming rule holds across the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable total for a small MCP server and does not feel bloated. However, most of the tools are platform/admin utilities, with only one domain-specific certidão operation, so the count slightly over-represents the actual MPT CE capability.
For a read-only Brazilian official certificate lookup, mpt_ce_cnf_consultar is the core operation and the surrounding tools cover auth, connection, payment, and feedback. Minor gaps exist, such as query history or explicit certificate-file download, but an agent can complete the essential workflow.