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 declare idempotentHint true, readOnlyHint false, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful behavioral context: token permanence vs session-only, and the behavior of returning a link when called with no arguments. It doesn't contradict annotations, though it doesn't fully disclose server-side storage or expiration details.
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 wordy but contains no wasted sentences; it's organized into two main options and gets to the point quickly. It could be tightened but is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.
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?
Given the simple parameter set and no output schema, the description covers both usage modes, the context for IDE agents, and the token types. It could mention potential errors or expiration details, but it is largely complete 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly explains the 'token' parameter as a JWT to paste for session login, and the no-args call to get a link. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds critical 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: to authenticate an IDE agent by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'connect' by focusing specifically on the authentication process and offering two distinct modes (permanent config vs session token).
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?
It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: recommends the best approach (config header for permanent connection) and describes the alternative (paste token for session-only). It also explains when to call with no args to obtain the login link, giving clear context and 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 set mixes platform/admin tools (authenticate, connect, toolkit_info) and a single domain tool (tj_processos_consultar). Some overlap exists between connect/authenticate and marketplace/toolkit_info, but detailed descriptions help distinguish them.
Names follow no consistent convention: English verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), a noun (marketplace), a noun phrase (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese verb phrase (tj_processos_consultar) are all mixed together, making discovery less predictable.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but six are generic MCP platform utilities while only one directly serves the 'Processos TJ' purpose, creating a scope mismatch.
The domain coverage is limited to a single consultation tool that supports multiple query parameters, but lacks follow-up operations such as process tracking or detailed case retrieval. The remaining tools are unrelated to legal processes.