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 idempotentHint=true and no destructive intent; the description adds meaningful behavior by disclosing that no args returns a login link and that pasting a token results in session-only auth versus a permanent config header. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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 three sentences and front-loaded with the main purpose. While slightly dense, every sentence provides necessary instructions for login flow, permanent configuration, and session-only usage.
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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the login flow, token usage, and permanent vs. session-only options. It does not describe the response format or potential failure modes, but these are adequately covered for an agent to invoke the tool 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 has one optional string token with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that token should be a JWT pasted by the user and that omitting it returns the login link, giving clear semantics for the only 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 communicates the authentication purpose: log in via browser, obtain an access token, and use it either as a permanent header or as a session-only token via the tool. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'connect' tool, but the intended function is unambiguous.
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 gives explicit usage instructions: call with no args to get the login link, or pass a token for session-only login, and recommends adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection. It does not compare to sibling tools, but it provides clear context for when to use each invocation style.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct, but connect and toolkit_info both report connection/status information, and authenticate overlaps with connect around authentication flow. The marketplace tool is a catch-all with many sub-actions, but as a named tool it is unique.
Naming conventions are mixed: single verbs (authenticate, connect), noun tools (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb_noun in English (report_bug, show_version), and one Portuguese verb_noun (sintegra_ccc_consultar). This inconsistency makes the tool list feel chaotic and hard to predict.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the server is named 'Sintegra CCC' and only one tool (sintegra_ccc_consultar) actually provides the core domain capability. The other six are generic MCP.AI platform utilities, making the tool set feel misaligned with the server's stated purpose.
For a Sintegra CCC server, the surface is severely lacking: only one consultation tool exists, with no additional domain operations or auxiliary features. While the platform-management tools are complete for their own domain, they do not contribute to the stated Sintegra CCC purpose, leaving the domain coverage nearly empty.