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?
Description discloses important behavioral details beyond annotations: non-expiring connection with config, session-only with pasted token, and that calling with no args returns a login link. It does not contradict idempotentHint=true or destructiveHint=false, and the disclosure of token persistence and link generation adds useful behavioral context.
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 structured in three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It is slightly dense with config instructions, but each sentence adds necessary usage detail without wasted words.
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 one-parameter authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers both call modes (with and without token) and the persistence difference. It omits explicit return-value/error details, but the behavior is sufficiently clear 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?
Input schema only defines a lone optional 'token' string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the token is a JWT, how to pass it for session-only authentication, and that omitting it returns the login link. This fully clarifies the parameter's role 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?
Description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: authenticating MCP.AI for IDE agents via a browser login and access token. It specifies the resource (MCP.AI) and action (log in/authenticate), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by describing a distinct login workflow.
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 explicit context for when to use: IDE agents like Cursor, with clear options for permanent (config header) vs session-only (pasted token) authentication. It does not mention alternative tools explicitly, but the instructions give strong guidance on usage modes and when to call with or without the token parameter.
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 marketplace tool bundles many distinct actions (search, invoke, install, subscribe, etc.) into a single tool, creating high ambiguity. connect and toolkit_info overlap in reporting connection status, while authenticate and connect both relate to credentials. Only sintegra_ce_consultar is clearly distinct.
Tool names mix verb-based (authenticate, connect, report_bug) with noun-based (marketplace, toolkit_info) conventions, and include a Portuguese-only name (sintegra_ce_consultar) among English names. No consistent verb_noun pattern is evident.
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range, but the distribution is uneven: marketplace alone appears to encompass several logical operations. Despite this imbalance, the count is not excessive for the server's apparent scope.
The core SINTEGRA CE consultation is covered by a single tool, but the platform tools are aggregated into the marketplace mega-tool, lacking separate granular operations. Additional features like historical queries or batch lookup for SINTEGRA would improve completeness, but basic consultation is present.