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 provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by noting the permanent (non-expiring) nature of config-based auth versus the session-only nature of token-based auth, and it describes the two invocation modes (with/without token). It does not detail the return value or side effects, but the annotations cover the safety profile.
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 with no fluff. Each sentence adds valuable information: context, best practice for permanent auth, and the alternative for session-only auth. It is slightly dense but well-structured and front-loaded with the tool's purpose.
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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the necessary aspects: the login flow, the two authentication modes, and the token format. It does not describe the response or confirm success, but this is not critical for a one-parameter auth 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?
The schema has only one optional string 'token' with no description (0% coverage). The description fully explains the parameter: it expects a JWT access token, and it specifies how to obtain and use it ('copy the access token', 'paste it here', 'call with { token: "<jwt>" }'). This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the bare 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's purpose: authenticate by logging in via browser, copying an access token, and then either adding it to the server config for a permanent connection or passing it as a JWT for session-only login. It distinguishes itself by explaining the exact authentication flow, unlike the generic 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?
It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Best: add it to this server's config... for a permanent, non-expiring connection. Or paste it here for a session-only login... call with { token: "<jwt>" }... or with no args to get the link.' This clarifies when to use the token argument versus no arguments. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool.
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 have distinct purposes, but `connect` and `toolkit_info` both report connection/status information, and `marketplace` is an overloaded catch-all covering search, invoke, install, and billing, making its boundaries fuzzy. The detailed descriptions help differentiate, but some confusion is possible.
Tool names are inconsistent: single verbs (authenticate, connect), noun-only (marketplace), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), noun_noun (toolkit_info), and a Portuguese domain-specific name (trf_certidao_consultar). No clear pattern unifies the set, mixing English/Portuguese and different naming conventions.
Seven tools is a reasonable number, but the set mixes generic platform utilities (authenticate, marketplace, report_bug, etc.) with a single domain-specific tool, making the count feel inflated for the stated purpose of the server (Certidão TRF). The count itself is not extreme, but the inclusion of unrelated infrastructure tools is questionable.
The domain appears to be querying Brazilian federal court certificates, but only one tool (`trf_certidao_consultar`) handles that. There is no way to manage past queries, retrieve documents, list available certificate types, or handle any other part of the certificate lifecycle. The remaining tools are about MCP platform management, not the domain, leaving significant gaps.