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 discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains the permanent vs. session-only login distinction, the behavior when called with no args (returns a link), and the token-based flow. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds useful context about session persistence without contradicting them.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Three sentences cover the main flow, the recommended permanent setup, and the session-only alternative. It is slightly dense but every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.
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 schema (one optional string, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete: it explains both authentication modes, the parameter semantics, and the no-args behavior. It does not cover error cases or return values, but these are less critical for an auth tool with no output schema.
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 as a JWT to paste, and clarifying that it is optional (no args gets the link). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition of a string property, though it could be more explicit about token format or validation.
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 to MCP.AI for IDE agents via browser login and token exchange. It specifies the exact actions ('log in in the browser, copy the access token', 'call with { token: ... }') and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on authentication rather than connection or marketplace functions.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: the recommended permanent approach (config header) versus the session-only approach (passing a token), and the no-args behavior to get a link. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the two modes are clearly differentiated.
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 clearly distinct purposes: authentication, connection status, marketplace, feedback, version, and toolkit info. The only slight overlap is between authenticate and connect, but they serve different functions (login vs. status). The domain-specific consultation tool is unambiguous.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use imperative verbs (authenticate, connect, report_bug, show_version), others are nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), and one uses a long snake_case Portuguese phrase (tribunal_trf3_processo_consultar). This mixed style reduces predictability.
With 7 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for a management toolkit. The set is not bloated, though the inclusion of a single domain-specific tool alongside generic platform utilities makes the overall scope feel slightly unfocused.
For platform management, the tools cover authentication, connection status, marketplace operations, version checks, toolkit state, and bug reporting. This is fairly comprehensive. However, for the apparent tribunal process domain, only one consultation tool exists, indicating a significant gap if that were the intended focus.