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 clearly discloses behavioral traits: it explains that using a header in config creates a 'permanent, non-expiring connection', while pasting a token gives 'session-only login'. It also implies side effects like storing tokens or modifying config, which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true). No contradiction with annotations.
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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. It efficiently covers the primary workflow, configuration, and fallback without unnecessary fluff.
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?
The description explains the two authentication modes and the token parameter, but it does not mention the output/return value of the call (e.g., what it returns after successful login) or error handling. However, given the absence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete for an authentication tool.
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?
Even though the schema has 1 optional parameter with 0% description coverage, the description thoroughly explains the 'token' parameter: it's the JWT copied after browser login, used for session-only authentication. It also clarifies the no-arg call behavior (returns link). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 tool's purpose: authenticate to MCP.AI by logging in via browser and obtaining an access tokenainer. It explains two distinct methods: permanent config header or session-only token. This is a specific verb (authenticate) with a clear resource (MCP.AI), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect' which might handle connections differently.
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 direct instructions on when to use each approach: 'Best: add it to this server's config...' for permanent access, or 'call with { token: ... }' for session-only. It also mentions calling with no args to get the link. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'connect' or specify when authentication is required versus optional, leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.
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 clearly distinct purpose: authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, bug reporting, version display, a specific data query, and toolkit state. No two tools overlap in functionality, and the descriptions make boundaries explicit.
Tool names mix verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun compounds (report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info), and a Portuguese-specific name (sintegra_es_consultar). There is no consistent pattern in style or language.
Seven tools is well within the ideal range for a platform management server. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancies or excessive granularity.
The set covers authentication, connection status, marketplace search/run/install, feedback, version, and toolkit state. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated prompt library tool), but these are bundled into marketplace, so core workflows are not obstructed.