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 beyond annotations: calling without token returns a link, with token authenticates. Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, which aligns. No contradictions. The description adds context about config vs. session behavior.
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 informative without being overly long. It is front-loaded with the best practice and then explains alternatives. Every sentence adds value, though the opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.):' is slightly niche but acceptable.
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 a simple authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers both usage modes, token format, and setup options. It does not describe the return value or error handling, but given simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the single optional 'token' parameter as a JWT string pasted by the user. It also clarifies the no-args case, adding meaning beyond the 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: authentication for IDE agents via browser login and token copy. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on authentication flow. The verb 'authenticate' and resource 'access token' are specific and 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?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: two methods (permanent config vs. session paste) and explains when to call with no args to get a login link. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.
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 have clear, distinct purposes, especially the procfy_list_* tools which each target a different entity. The platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace) are also distinguishable. However, the marketplace tool is multi-purpose with different actions, which could cause some confusion, but descriptions help.
Procfy-specific tools follow a consistent 'procfy_verb_noun' pattern, but platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) lack a prefix and mix verb and noun forms (e.g., marketplace is a noun). This inconsistency in naming conventions across the set reduces clarity.
With 16 tools, it's slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but still reasonable for a domain covering multiple entities (accounts, bank accounts, categories, etc.). The inclusion of platform tools (6) contributes to the count, but they are necessary for the server's operation.
The server provides extensive list operations and a create for transactions, but lacks update/delete for transactions and CRUD for other entities (categories, contacts, etc.). No tool for getting individual entities (except transaction and bank account balance) or creating/modifying them. Significant gaps for a full lifecycle.