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 key behavioral aspects beyond annotations: browser-based login, permanent non-expiring header auth vs session-only pasted token, and that calling with no args returns a login link. It adds useful context without contradicting the idempotentHint or destructiveHint 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 front-loaded with audience and purpose, then organized with 'Best:' and 'Or' branches. Every sentence earns its place, covering the two auth modes without unnecessary padding.
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 tool's complexity is moderate, and the description covers the core workflow, token format, persistence behavior, and call patterns. It does not specify the success response or error behavior, but it provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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: it is a JWT, optional, and should be supplied after the user pastes it, while omitting it triggers link generation. This adds meaningful semantic value to the bare string 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 states the tool authenticates to MCP.AI for IDE agents via browser login and token handling. It names the specific resource and workflow, distinguishing it from generic siblings like connect and report_bug.
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 clear context and in-tool usage branches: use no args to get a link, and use { token: "<jwt>" } after the user pastes a token. It also recommends the permanent config-header approach over session-only login, though it does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling 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.
marketplace and search_tools both provide search/describe/invoke over the MCP catalog, so an agent can easily pick the wrong one. authenticate and connect also overlap somewhat on auth/status concerns, though less severely.
Names mix bare verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), and compound forms (report_bug, search_tools, show_version, toolkit_info). They are readable and mostly action-oriented, but there is no single predictable convention.
Seven tools is within a reasonable raw range, but the count is less appropriate than it appears because marketplace is a mega-tool with many suboperations and search_tools duplicates its core functionality. The set could be leaner and better structured.
For the inferred MCP-platform-management domain, auth, status, catalog search/invoke, bug reporting, version, and toolkit info are covered. However, the server is named Stripe, and no payment or Stripe-specific API tools exist, making the surface severely incomplete for the apparent purpose.