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?
Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: token optional, returns a link if omitted, and distinguishes permanent vs session login. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences packed with information. No wasted words. Clearly structured: first sentence states purpose, second explains the two usage paths.
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?
No output schema, but the description covers behavior for both arg cases. Could mention response format (link text), but context is sufficient 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?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains the 'token' parameter: accepts a JWT for session login, optional if user wants the link. Adds complete meaning.
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: authentication for IDE agents. It explains the two workflows (permanent config vs session token) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'marketplace'.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use each variant: 'add it to this server's config ... for a permanent, non-expiring connection' or 'paste it here for a session-only login'. No 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.
The socialdl_* trio has clear, distinct purposes, but the marketplace tool is a catch-all that duplicates report_bug and overlaps with toolkit_info and connect, creating ambiguity. Authenticate and connect also have related but not clearly bounded concerns.
Tool names mix conventions: bare verbs (authenticate, connect), verb-noun (report_bug, show_version), nouns (marketplace), and a prefix-based group (socialdl_*). The socialdl group is consistent, but the rest lack a unified pattern.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for its purpose, combining social media conversion tools with platform management utilities. Each tool has a distinct role, and the count is within the typical effective range.
The social media workflow is well covered: download, extract, and metadata. However, there is no explicit logout/disconnect tool, and the marketplace's extensive scope (install, billing, prompts) may leave some management workflows incomplete (e.g., no listing of user's stored prompts).