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 indicate idempotentHint true and readOnlyHint false, and the description adds behavioral details beyond those: it explains the flow of returning a link or accepting a token, and mentions the optional permanent configuration via header, which is not captured in annotations. No contradiction exists.
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, somewhat lengthy sentence but is well-structured with clear separation of the two usage modes. It includes concrete call examples ('{token: "<jwt>"}' and 'no args') and front-loads the primary purpose. It could be slightly more concise, but every phrase adds 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?
Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what to expect (a link when no args, presumably a success status with token). It also covers the optional parameter, the two login paths, and the recommended configuration approach. For a simple one-param tool with no nested objects, this is 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 only parameter 'token' has zero schema description, but the description fully compensates by explaining it is a JWT for session login and that omitting it yields a login link. This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw type, making parameter usage crystal clear.
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 it is for authentication/login, explicitly mentioning 'log in in the browser' and providing two authentication modes (config-based permanent and session-based token). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' by focusing on auth, making the 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?
Provides explicit usage scenarios: calling with no args to get a login link, or with a token for session-only login, and suggests the best practice of adding a header to the server config for permanent access. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
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.
Several tools have unclear boundaries: the marketplace tool bundles search/describe/invoke/install/list_tools/report_bug sub-actions, while separate connect, toolkit_info, and report_bug tools overlap with those capabilities. Within finanças, poupa_defaults, poupa_category, and poupa_preferences also cover overlapping category/preference territory, so an agent could easily misselect.
The financial tools use a mostly consistent 'poupa_<verb_or_noun>' snake_case pattern, but platform tools mix nouns and verbs: authenticate, connect, marketplace, show_version, toolkit_info. There is no uniform verb_noun convention across the whole server, though the poupa_ prefix does help readability.
19 tools is in the borderline-heavy range and not obviously excessive for a personal-finance management plus platform toolkit. However, several tools abstract large sub-actions while the domain still needs separate helper tools, making the set feel moderately bloated rather than tightly scoped.
The transaction lifecycle is covered well: add, bulk add, retrieve, update, delete, filter, and transfer, plus balance and lists. But banks, cards, categories, memories, and preferences are mostly read-only, with no create/update/delete support for those resources, so agents cannot manage the full financial workspace through this server alone.