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 explains the two authentication flows (permanent config vs session token), what happens when no token is provided (returns a link), and that the config method is for a 'permanent, non-expiring connection'. Annotations (idempotentHint true) are consistent with the description.
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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured, beginning with the tool's target audience and use case. It efficiently covers authentication options without unnecessary detail, though a few words could be trimmed.
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 description provides complete context for an authentication tool: methods, permanence, token usage, and expected user action. Given the optional parameter and no output schema, it sufficiently informs the agent about invocation and behavior.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'token' parameter, but the description fully explains its semantics: if provided, it authenticates with that JWT; if omitted, it returns a login link. This adds complete 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: authenticate to the MCP server using a token, either permanently via config or session-only via the tool call. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'marketplace' which serve different functions.
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 clear guidance on when to use each authentication method (config for permanent, call for session) and how to pass the token. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is sufficient.
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 three rdstation_contacts_* tools and three rdstation_webhooks_* tools have identical descriptions listing the same set of actions, making them indistinguishable. An agent cannot determine which tool performs which action based on the descriptions alone.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: domain-specific tools use `rdstation_<noun>_<action>` (rdstation_contacts_get) but also `rdstation_<action>_<noun>` (rdstation_list_accounts), and some tools lack the domain prefix (authenticate, marketplace). The pattern varies across the set.
At 15 tools, the count is at the upper bound of reasonable scope. However, many tools are redundant (e.g., three tools for contacts actions) and could be consolidated, making the set feel heavier than necessary.
The RD Station domain covers contacts, webhooks, events, and accounts. However, contacts lack a delete action, and there is no tool to list contacts. The webhooks set is complete (create, list, delete) but missing an update. Minor gaps exist.