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 indicate non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior The description builds on this by explaining the login workflow, token copying, and session-permanent distinction. It does not detail edge cases (e.g., expired tokens or errors), but the core behavior is transparent for an auth tool.
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?
Three compact sentences cover the core workflow, the recommended permanent setup, and the session-only alternative, all front-loaded with the most important actions. Code formatting for token usage improves readability. No unnecessary filler.
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 auth tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description provides enough context: how to initiate login, what to do with a token, and how to choose session vs permanent. It could mention return values or error/expiry behavior, but these are not essential for selecting and invoking.
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 input schema lists one optional string parameter with no schema-level description (0% coverage). The description compensates well by showing the exact object syntax `{ token: "<jwt>" }` and clarifying that omitting the parameter retrieves the link for browser login. This fully conveys the parameter's meaning and optionality.
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 resource (MCP.AI for IDE agents) and the action (log in, copy access token, provide token). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect by focusing specifically on authentication/access-token handling.
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 explicitly presents two usage paths: permanent configuration via header versus session-only token paste, and explains when to call with a token versus with no arguments. This gives clear guidance on the exact call variations and their contexts.
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 distinct purpose: authenticate and connect handle sessions, marketplace handles MCP discovery/execution, report_bug is for feedback, show_version and toolkit_info are informational, and sefaz_sp_nfe_consultar is the sole domain-specific operation. No overlap between them.
Tool names are consistently lowercase with snake_case for multi-word (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info, sefaz_sp_nfe_consultar). Some are verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug) and some are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), but the pattern is predictable and readable.
7 tools is a reasonable number, but the server is named 'SEFAZ SP: NFE' yet only 1 tool is NFE-specific; the other 6 are generic platform utilities unrelated to the domain, making the count inappropriate for the stated purpose.
The NFE domain is represented by a single consult tool. Missing any other NFE operations (listing, creation, cancellation, etc.), and the platform tools (authenticate, connect, marketplace, etc.) are not part of the NFE workflow. The surface is severely incomplete for the server's apparent purpose.