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 goes beyond annotations by explaining the authentication flow: calling with no args returns a link, passing a JWT token establishes a session. It also distinguishes between permanent and session-only authentication. Annotations already indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness, and the description adds relevant auth context without contradiction.
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 a single run-on sentence but is front-loaded with purpose and covers both usage modes. Every clause adds value, though it could be better structured with separate sentences or bullet points for 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?
For a single-parameter authentication tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter meaning. It does not detail the exact return payload, but that is not critical given the simple use case and the presence of annotations. It adequately equips an agent to decide when and how to call.
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 declares an optional 'token' string with no description. The description compensates by clarifying that the token is a JWT access token obtained from browser login and that omitting it yields a login link. This adds meaningful semantics 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 purpose: authenticating an MCP.AI server for IDE agents via browser login and token. It uses specific verbs (log in, authenticate) and references the resource (MCP.AI). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect', but the authentication focus is unmistakable.
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 explicit usage scenarios: permanent configuration via an Authorization header and session-only login via a token, including instructions to call with no arguments to receive a login link. It does not mention alternative tools, but the two distinct usage modes are clearly described.
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.
Tool names and purposes are mostly distinct, though 'show_version' and 'toolkit_info' could be confused; descriptions clarify their different roles.
Naming is inconsistent: mixes English and Portuguese (e.g., 'sefaz_pr_nfce_consultar') and uses both underscores and no underscores (e.g., 'authenticate' vs 'report_bug').
7 tools is reasonable, but many are generic (authenticate, connect, marketplace) rather than domain-specific, slightly inflating the count for a simple NFC-e consultation service.
Only one NFC-e specific tool exists; lacks other potentially useful operations (e.g., listing documents, validation). Generic tools do not fill domain gaps.