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 (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds behavioral context: it describes the browser login flow, the difference between permanent and session-only authentication, and the behavior when called with no arguments (returns a link). No contradiction 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 three sentences, informative and generally well-structured. The introductory phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' adds context but could be trimmed without losing value.
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 an authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the main use cases (permanent vs session, no-args behavior) and sufficient context for an agent. Return values are implied but not explicitly stated, which is a minor gap.
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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining that the 'token' parameter is a JWT for session-only login, and that omitting it returns the login link. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: authenticate by logging in via browser and copying the access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings like connect and marketplace by focusing specifically on the authentication flow for IDE agents.
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 explains two usage modes: permanent configuration via header and session-only using the token parameter, plus the no-args case to retrieve the login link. It gives clear context on when to use each, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools.
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 five multa-related tools are clearly distinct by resource (vehicle debts, history, federal infractions, CNH points, vehicles by owner), but the platform-level tools overlap: authenticate/connect/toolkit_info all touch connection/auth status, and marketplace bundles many separate capabilities into one broad tool. This creates some boundary confusion for an agent selecting between them.
Domain tools follow a consistent 'multas_' prefix pattern, but utility tools use inconsistent English verb/noun styles: authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info. Mixing Portuguese noun-phrase names with generic English imperative/descriptive names makes the set feel disjointed and pattern-less.
Eleven tools is within a reasonable range, but it feels top-heavy because only five tools actually serve the core fines-consulta domain while the rest are platform/account/admin utilities. The huge marketplace tool also compresses many sub-operations into one entry, making the count misleading.
The core query workflow is covered: find vehicles by owner, query vehicle debts by plate, check federal infractions, and verify CNH points. Missing features like fine payment or appeal detail are beyond the stated consulta purpose, so there are only minor workaround-level gaps for the apparent scope.