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?
Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses session vs. permanent token behavior, non-expiring config-based auth, and that no-arg calls return a link. This adds useful context about side effects and token lifecycle, which is not present in the annotations alone.
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 compact and information-dense, covering config setup, session-only usage, and no-args behavior in two sentences. The first clause 'MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)' is somewhat odd as a lead-in, but the content is efficient and front-loaded with the core login action.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description only mentions that no-args calls return the login link. It does not describe the outcome of a token call, error handling for invalid tokens, or what happens after successful authentication, leaving some gaps for an auth tool with no structured output definition.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the token parameter as a JWT pasted from the browser and how it is used (call with { token: "<jwt>" }). It also clarifies the no-arg alternative, giving the parameter meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly identifies the tool as an authentication mechanism for IDE agents, specifying 'log in in the browser, copy the access token' and accepting a JWT. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'connect' by focusing on token-based login and link generation, though the opening phrase 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' is slightly cryptic.
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 modes: best practice is to add the token to server config for a permanent connection, while pasting the token allows session-only login. It also explains that calling with no args retrieves the login link, providing clear when-to-use guidance for each scenario.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes: authenticate/connect handle auth, marketplace is the catalog/execution hub, sintegra_pe_consultar is the actual data lookup, and report_bug/show_version/toolkit_info are auxiliary. Some overlap between connect and toolkit_info regarding connection status, but descriptions clarify the difference.
Naming mixes lowercase single-word verbs (authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info) with one snake_case Portuguese tool (sintegra_pe_consultar). The pattern is not uniform, but the names are mostly readable and follow a verb-first or noun-verb structure.
Seven tools is a reasonable count for a hybrid platform server that handles auth, catalog/search, execution orchestration, and one domain-specific lookup. It is slightly heavy because the marketplace tool bundles many sub-actions (search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, list_tools, prompts) into one description, but the overall scope justifies the count.
The server covers the core lifecycle of platform management: auth, connection status, catalog discovery, one-off execution, permanent installation, billing controls, bug reporting, and version info. A minor gap is no explicit tool for managing multiple accounts or retrieving detailed per-install credentials beyond connect, but the described flows handle most needs.