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 (idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses key behavioral details: token is a JWT, the config-based method yields a non-expiring connection, and calling with no args returns a link. While it doesn't describe failure modes or the exact return value, it adds meaningful context about the authentication flow.
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 slightly verbose with an introductory audience note ('MCP.AI for IDE agents'), but every subsequent sentence conveys necessary information. It is front-loaded and organized, with clear separation of the two authentication modes. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the complexity.
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 is complete enough for a simple tool: it explains the two workflows, the token's role, and the no-args link retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state what the function returns after successful authentication or any errors that might occur, which would be helpful given there is no output schema.
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 clearly explained: it is the JWT pasted by the user for session-only login. The description also explains the no-args behavior. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description fully compensates by giving the parameter meaningful context and format.
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 users via browser login and token exchange. It uses specific verbs like 'log in' and 'copy the access token,' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'marketplace' by focusing on the authentication flow.
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 explicit usage guidance: it explains when to call with no args (to get the login link), when to pass a token (session-only login), and recommends configuring the token in the server config for permanent access. This directly addresses when and how to use the tool versus 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.
Most top-level tools have distinct jobs, but `marketplace` bundles many actions that overlap with separately named tools such as `report_bug`, and `connect`/`toolkit_info` both report connection/provider state. An agent can find the right tool, but only after carefully reading the long definitions.
The names do not follow a single verb_noun pattern: `authenticate` and `connect` are one-word verbs, `marketplace` and `toolkit_info` are noun-like names, and `sintegra_to_consultar` mixes Portuguese structure into the set. Everything is readable snake_case, but the semantic naming is inconsistent.
Seven tools is reasonable for a platform-oriented MCP server. However, `marketplace` carries a very heavy multi-action workload, and several generic helpers (`connect`, `toolkit_info`, `show_version`) could be seen as peripheral.
The server covers the life cycle it needs to cover: authentication, connection status, marketplace search/run/install, billing/support hooks, version info, and the SINTEGRA query itself. The main gaps are minor, such as the absence of an explicit logout/disconnect or a dedicated domain operation beyond the single consultation.