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 (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false) are not contradicted. The description adds value by revealing that calling with no args returns a linkásession flow, and that providing a token completes authentication. It also suggests a permanent header configuration, adding context beyond the schema.
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 moderately long but well-structured: starts with context and audience, then explains two invocation patterns. Each sentence adds value; no filler. Slightly verbose but acceptable for an auth tool needing clarity.
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?
Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers essential behavioral aspects: login flow, token usage, permanent vs session, and return behavior (link). It could mention the exact response format, but it's sufficient for an agent to understand and call 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 provides only the parameter name 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining that token is a JWT, the exact format '{ token: "<jwt>" }', and that omitting it triggers returning a login link. This gives complete meaning to the parameter.
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: 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' for MCP.AI IDE agents. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on authentication setup, and explicitly explains the token flow and alternative configuration (header vs session token).
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 clear guidance on two usage modes: 'Best: add it to this server's config as a header...' and 'Or paste it here for a session-only login.' It also explains when to call with no args ('no args to get the link'). While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives among siblings, it gives actionable instructions on how to use the tool in different scenarios.
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 overlap in purpose: `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection/status details, `authenticate` is entangled with connection setup, and `marketplace` duplicates actions like `list_tools` and `report_bug` that also exist as dedicated tools. Only `sefaz_ce_nfce_consultar` has an unambiguous, domain-specific role.
Naming conventions are mixed: one-word verbs (`connect`, `authenticate`), noun-style names (`marketplace`, `toolkit_info`), and verb_noun names (`report_bug`, `show_version`) appear inconsistently. The domain tool `sefaz_ce_nfce_consultar` further breaks the pattern by using Portuguese and a verb-suffix style.
Seven tools is a reasonable number on its own, but the set feels padded with generic platform meta-tools while only one tool serves the declared SEFAZ CE NFC-e purpose. The overloaded `marketplace` tool and duplicated `report_bug` behavior make the count less purposeful than it appears.
For the narrow purpose of a SEFAZ CE NFC-e consultation, the single domain tool provides the core lookup capability. However, adjacent tax-document operations are absent, and the set is heavily weighted toward platform management rather than domain coverage.