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: differentiates between a permanent, non-expiring connection and a session-only login, and describes the behavior when called with no args. Annotations (idempotent, non-destructive) are not contradicted, and the description enriches understanding of the tool's side effects.
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 slightly verbose but well-structured: it front-loads the purpose, then explains the two invocation modes clearly. Each sentence carries useful information, making it efficient despite its length.
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 authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: how to authenticate permanently, how to authenticate for a session, and how to obtain the login link. It is complete and self-contained.
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 a 'token' string without description. The description fully compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT for session-only login and that calling with no args retrieves the link. This gives complete parameter meaning beyond the 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: authentication for IDE agents, with specific actions ('log in in the browser, copy the access token'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect or marketplace by focusing solely on authentication flows.
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 context on how to use the tool: permanent configuration via header vs session-only token paste, and the no-arg call to get a link. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance within the tool is explicit and well-structured.
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.
Connect and toolkit_info both report connection status and installed MCPs, creating ambiguity. Authenticate and connect also overlap in the authentication flow, while marketplace's list_tools further duplicates toolkit introspection.
Names mix English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version) with a Portuguese verb (sintegra_consultar) and nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), showing no consistent pattern or language.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but six are generic MCP platform utilities unrelated to Sintegra. Only one tool serves the stated domain, making the set feel padded with irrelevant meta-tools.
For the Sintegra domain, only a single query tool exists, lacking any additional operations like listing supported states or verifying service status. The platform utilities do not contribute to domain coverage, leaving the surface thin.