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?
Adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining the permanent vs. session nature of authentication and the token format (JWT). While annotations already note idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description provides valuable behavior around persistence and link generation. No contradiction with annotations.
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 front-loaded with purpose and concise enough, but includes some verbose explanation of the config option. It is well-structured and every sentence adds value, with minor room for tightening.
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?
Covers both usage modes and token semantics thoroughly. Lacks explicit description of return values or errors, but given the simple 1-param schema, absence of output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It explicitly explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT, optional (no args returns a link), and its role in session login. This adds complete significance beyond the bare schema definition.
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 IDE agents via browser login and token exchange. It uses specific verbs ('log in', 'copy token') and resource ('access token'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing on authentication flow.
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 guidance on two usage modes: permanent connection via config header, and session-only via passing a token or no args to get a link. It tells the user exactly when to use each approach, effectively serving as a usage guide.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version info, toolkit state, and NFC-e consultation. No overlap exists; even the complex marketplace tool is well-defined with its own sub-actions.
Naming is inconsistent: single-word verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) mix with noun phrases (marketplace, toolkit_info) and a snake_case Portuguese verb (sefaz_ba_nfce_consultar). No uniform verb_noun or noun_verb pattern is followed.
While 7 tools is a reasonable number in isolation, the majority are generic platform utilities unrelated to the server's stated purpose of SEFAZ BA NFC-e. Only one tool actually serves the domain, making the count feel padded with generic functions.
For the declared domain of NFC-e consultation, only one operation exists (sefaz_ba_nfce_consultar). There are no related tools for listing, validating, or managing NFC-e data, leaving the surface severely incomplete for the stated purpose.