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 explains the mechanics (browser login, token handling) but does not explicitly state side effects such as whether a session is created or if state changes. The annotation indicates idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds some detail about permanent vs session-only, but it could be more explicit about what happens after successful authentication.
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 a bit verbose with 'Best:' and 'Or:' but remains logically structured and not overly long. It conveys all necessary information without redundancy, though it could be tightened.
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 covers the primary use cases (getting a link, submitting a token) and clarifies the difference between permanent and session-based login. It does not mention potential errors or what happens after token submission, but for an authentication tool it is reasonably complete.
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 only parameter 'token' is fully explained in the description: it is the JWT to authenticate with, and it is optional (call with token or no args). This gives complete meaning to the schema, which has no descriptions of its own.
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: authenticating to the server for IDE agents. It explains two usage modes (getting a login link or providing a token) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect or show_version by focusing specifically on login/authentication.
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 clear instructions on how to use the tool (call with token or no args to get link) and explains the difference between permanent and session-only authentication. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives, but the context makes it the obvious choice for login, so it is largely adequate.
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 is a monolith covering search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, cancel, report_bug, request_mcp, and prompt library actions, while separate report_bug and connect tools overlap with it. Existing overlaps (connect vs toolkit_info status, authenticate vs connect) create ambiguity. An agent would struggle to decide whether to use marketplace or the dedicated tool.
Tool names mix bare verbs (connect, authenticate), nouns (marketplace), verb_noun compounds (report_bug, show_version, sintegra_sp_consultar), and noun_noun (toolkit_info). No consistent verb-object pattern; styles vary between snake_case and words without delimiters, making predictions unreliable.
Seven tools is within the typical well-scoped range for a platform toolkit. The count is reasonable, though the marketplace tool shoulders many responsibilities and could be split; still, the overall number is appropriate.
The server covers authentication, connection status, MCP discovery/execution, billing controls, feedback, version info, toolkit state, and a specific data lookup. Minor gaps like user preference management are absent, but core workflows are represented. The inclusion of sintegra_sp_consultar appears domain-specific but does not create a dead end.