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 explains the authentication flow (browser login, token copy, config header vs session token) and indicates persistence differences. Annotations already note idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds context about permanent vs session tokens without contradicting 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?
Three concise sentences convey the purpose, the optimal method, and the alternative session method, all front-loaded. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
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?
With a simple schema (1 optional param, no output schema), the description fully covers how to authenticate, including permanent and session variants. It is complete for a low-complexity tool; no additional details are necessary.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'token' parameter meaning (JWT for session login) and the no-argument case (yielding a link). It gives practical semantics beyond the bare schema, covering both usage scenarios.
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 authenticates for MCP.AI IDE agents, specifying the verb 'log in' and the resource 'MCP.AI'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' or 'marketplace' by focusing solely on authentication, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 provides clear instructions for two usage modes: adding a permanent header to config or passing a token for session-only login, and explains calling with no args to get a link. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context makes it obvious this is for authentication.
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 are clearly distinct, especially the domain-specific certificate query versus platform helpers. However, `connect` and `toolkit_info` overlap by both reporting connection status, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong one.
Tool names are readable and mostly lowercase, but conventions are mixed: imperative verbs (`authenticate`, `connect`, `report_bug`, `show_version`), bare nouns (`marketplace`, `toolkit_info`), and a domain-prefixed verb-noun inversion (`mpt_pe_cnf_consultar`). This is a mixed but still understandable style.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a hosted MCP platform server, but the set is slightly heavy because only one tool is domain-specific while the other six are generic platform utilities. It is not bloated enough to be problematic.
The core domain operation—consulting the MPT PE negative certificate—is fully covered by `mpt_pe_cnf_consultar`, and the platform tools cover auth, status, marketplace, version, and feedback. Minor gaps exist around billing balance or certificate history, but agents can work around them.