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 declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. It adds useful behavioral context: calling without args returns a link, and passing a token enables a session-only login. It also mentions the permanent vs. session distinction, which is beyond the annotations. Slightly lacks explicit detail on side effects (e.g., whether it stores the token), but overall transparency is strong.
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 concise yet informative, front-loading the purpose and then branching into configuration vs. session usage. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition. It is well-structured and easy for an agent to parse.
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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what happens: it either returns a link (when called with no args) or processes a token. It also covers the two usage modes (permanent config vs. session-only). The tool is simple, and the description covers all necessary aspects for an agent to invoke 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 only defines 'token' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining when to provide the token (after the user pastes) and its format ('<jwt>'), and that omitting it returns the login link. This fully adds meaning beyond the raw 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 is for authentication, specifying the exact flow: log in in the browser, copy the access token, and either add it to the server config or pass it as a parameter. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the dedicated auth tool for IDE agents (e.g., Cursor).
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?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: it recommends adding the token as a header for a permanent connection, or pasting the token for a session-only login. It also tells the caller when to pass a token (with the user's pasted JWT) and when to call with no args (to get the link). This fully clarifies when and how to use the tool.
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: authenticate handles login, connect reports status, marketplace is the catalog/execution hub, report_bug is feedback, show_version is version info, and toolkit_info shows installed MCPs. The main ambiguity is between connect and toolkit_info, both reporting connection status, but their descriptions differentiate them enough.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some are bare verbs (authenticate, connect), some are verb-noun (report_bug, show_version), one is a noun (marketplace), one is snake_case with a domain prefix (sefaz_ce_nfe_consultar), and one is a compound noun (toolkit_info). The inconsistency is distracting and doesn't hint at the tool's function.
With 7 tools, the count is well within the recommended range. Each tool has a clear role in the platform's workflow, from authentication to marketplace access to version checks. The count feels appropriate for a platform wrapper that also hosts a single domain-specific operation.
The server's stated purpose (SEFAZ CE: NFE) is served by only one tool, sefaz_ce_nfe_consultar, offering consultation but no other lifecycle operations (e.g., list, validate, download). The platform-level tools are comprehensive, but the domain coverage is extremely thin, leaving obvious gaps for any real NFE workflow.