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 indicate idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds context about the two authentication paths and that calling with no args returns a login link, which is useful behavioral detail. Lacks explicit mention of side effects (e.g., storing token) but annotations cover safety.
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?
Two sentences pack substantial detail, but the structure is a bit dense. It front-loads the core action and then explains modes. No redundancy, but could be tightened.
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 one optional parameterفق, the description fully covers the usage scenarios . The output is a link or session token, which is implied. No further context needed.
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 provides no description coverage, but the description explains the token parameter clearly: it is the JWT to be passed for session-only login, and its absence triggers a link retrieval. This fully compensates for schema gaps.
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: authenticating an IDE agent to MCP.AI via browser login and token. It distinguishes the two operational modes (config header vs. session token), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings 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?
Provides explicit usage guidance: recommends adding token to config for permanent connection, and describes the alternative session-based flow with or without a token argument. Clearly explains when to use each mode, effectively guiding agent decisions.
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 clearly distinct purposes: the rede_* tools cover specific financial data (charges, account, extract, receivables, sales), while authenticate/connect/toolkit_info handle authentication/status with some overlap but distinct focuses. The marketplace tool is a multi-action mega-tool, but its description clearly delineates between search, describe, invoke, install, and subscription actions, reducing ambiguity.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools use English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug), others use Portuguese nouns (rede_cobrancas, rede_conta, rede_extrato), and two use a mix of noun and verb (rede_vendas_listar, rede_vendas_resumo). The rede_* prefix provides some consistency, but the overall pattern lacks a uniform verb_noun structure, making it harder to predict tool names.
With 12 tools, the count is reasonable for a platform that combines toolkit management and Rede-specific financial queries. The marketplace tool consolidates many actions into one, which keeps the count manageable. Slightly fewer tools might be cleaner, but it's not excessive given the breadth of functionality.
The server covers the essential lifecycle for both toolkit management (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, cancel) and Rede financial data (list sales, summary, charges, account, extract, receivables). Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit logout or disconnect tool, and the marketplace bundles many actions that could be split, but the overall surface is comprehensive for its intended use.