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?
Goes beyond annotations by disclosing two login modes (session-only vs permanent) and explaining that tokens are JWTs. It also notes that no-args returns a link. It does not mention potential side effects like token storage, but annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness.
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 three sentences, each adding distinct value (browser login, config option, session option). It is slightly verbose with the initial 'MCP.AI for IDE agents' context, but it is front-loaded with the core 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the two invocation modes and the permanent vs. session-based distinction. It could mention what the returned link looks like or success/failure behavior, but 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 schema only lists optional 'token' with no description, but the description fully explains the parameter: a JWT to paste for session login, or omitted to retrieve a link. This 100% compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
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: logging in via browser and obtaining/using an access token for authentication. It differentiates itself as being for IDE agents and explains the token exchange process, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling 'connect'.
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?
Provides explicit usage guidance: call with no args to get a login link, or with a token for session-only login. It also recommends a permanent config approach. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to 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 tools are distinct, but marketplace is a catch-all that overlaps with report_bug and toolkit_info, and connect/toolkit_info both provide connection status. Descriptions help but some ambiguity remains.
All names use snake_case, but patterns vary: bare verbs (authenticate, connect), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), object_verb (suframa_consultar), and pure nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info). The mix is readable but not consistent.
Seven tools is a reasonable count and within the 3-15 range, but marketplace is a monolithic mega-tool packing many sub-operations, inflating the effective surface. The combination of platform utilities and a single domain tool also reduces focus.
For a server named 'Suframa', the only domain-specific tool is suframa_consultar, a single CNPJ lookup. Missing any other Suframa-related operations means the domain surface is severely incomplete. The rest are generic platform tools unrelated to Suframa.