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 already declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint; the description goes beyond by explaining the permanent vs. session-only behavior and that calling with no arguments returns a link. It doesn't detail response formats or potential errors, but it adds meaningful context about how the tool behaves in different invocation modes.
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 compact and front-loaded, using three sentences to cover the target audience, two login modes, and invocation patterns. It is slightly dense but every clause adds useful information, and there is no filler.
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?
Given one optional parameter, no output schema, and useful annotations, the description covers the input semantics, the authentication flow, and both usage modes. It doesn't specify what the token response looks like or potential error cases, but for an authentication tool with strong annotations this is reasonably 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?
The schema only defines 'token' as a string with no description and 0% coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that the token is a JWT, is optional, and that omitting it yields a login link while providing it performs a session-only authentication. This is exactly the semantic guidance an agent needs.
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 that this tool handles authentication/login for MCP.AI in IDE agents, explaining that it can provide a login link or accept a JWT token. It effectively describes the tool's purpose without being a tautology, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'connect'.
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 instructions: add the token to the server config for a permanent connection, or pass the token for a session-only login, and call with no args to get the link. It gives clear context and invocation patterns, but doesn't explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives.
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 platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) are each distinct in purpose, and offshore_leaks_consultar is clearly the only data-facing tool. However, the mix of platform utilities with a single domain-specific query could confuse an agent about the server's primary function.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: single-word nouns (connect, marketplace), verb_noun snake_case (offshore_leaks_consultar), and camelCase-like compounds (show_version, toolkit_info). This inconsistency makes the tool set feel haphazard.
With 7 tools but only one actually related to Offshore Leaks, the count is highly inappropriate. The server appears to be a generic MCP platform masquerading as an offshore-leaks data source, so the tool count does not match the server's stated purpose.
The offshore-leaks domain is severely underserved: there is only a single query tool (consultar) and no capabilities for retrieving details, listing entities, or any other data operations. The platform tools are irrelevant to the domain, leaving the core functionality almost entirely missing.