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 discloses behavioral traits like token handling and session vs. permanent login, and notes that calling with no args returns a link. Annotations state idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. It adds context about token configuration that annotations don't cover, but doesn't mention potential side effects like token expiration specifics beyond 'non-expiring' vs 'session-only'.
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 moderately concise but includes extraneous context like 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' which is not essential. The structure is slightly informal and could be front-loaded with a clear summary. Every part is relevant, but the sentence could be tightened.
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 tool is simple with one optional parameter. The description covers the main functionality, usage scenarios, and provides enough guidance for an agent to decide when to use it. It lacks explicit mention of return values, but no output schema exists, so the description is sufficient. The completeness is high given the complexity.
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 coverage for the token parameter is 0%, but the description explains the token parameter's usage and its optionality. It describes how to use the parameter and its role in authentication. However, it doesn't provide format validation or specific details beyond the token being a JWT. Baseline 3 applies since schema coverage is low but description compensates sufficiently.
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 the user by either providing a browser login link or accepting a pasted token. It specifies the action (log in, copy token, add as header) and differentiates from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing on authentication flow. However, it could be more concise and direct about the core function.
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 explicitly explains two usage scenarios: permanent connection via config header and session-only login via token parameter. It provides step-by-step guidance and mentions alternatives. This is clear and actionable, with no ambiguity.
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.
Only one tool (mpt_pi_cnf_consultar) serves the server's stated domain purpose; the rest are platform utilities that blur together. connect, toolkit_info, and show_version all overlap as status/info tools, while marketplace is a grab-bag handling search, install, billing, and prompt library operations that a separate tool (mcp_pi) suggests is actually named mpt_pi, making the distinction even murkier.
Naming mixes bare verbs (authenticate, connect), verb_noun snake_case (report_bug, show_version), a bare noun (marketplace), the domain-prefixed mpt_pi_cnf_consultar, and the inconsistent toolkit_info (missing a verb). There's no consistent convention applied across the set.
Seven tools is numerically fine, but six of seven address platform infrastructure rather than the certificate-query purpose. The count is borderline: there's essentially one domain tool and a pile of admin/metadata utilities that arguably belong to the hosting platform, not this server.
As a 'Certidão Negativa de Feitos' server, it offers exactly one operational call with no query history, no response-format options, no retry/callback flow, and no way to manage the prepaid credits it references. The platform meta-tools (marketplace, version, toolkit state) don't address domain gaps, leaving the surface significantly under-covered for its purpose.