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 the tool's behavior beyond the annotations: it explains that calling with a token authenticates for a session, while calling with no args returns a link. It also mentions that a permanent config approach results in a non-expiring connection, implying a persistent side effect. The description does not explicitly state error handling or rate limits, but it provides sufficient behavioral detail for an authentication tool, and it is consistent with the annotations (idempotentHint true).
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 fairly concise, consisting of three sentences that clearly separate the main steps and options. It avoids unnecessary fluff but contains some redundancy (e.g., explaining both methods in detail). It is well-structured with clear phrases like 'Best:' and 'Or paste it here,' making it easy to follow despite being a bit verbose.
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) and lack of output schema, the description provides adequate context: it mentions the target environment (IDE agents), the authentication flow, and how to use the parameter. It does not elaborate on return values or error states, but those are not specified in the schema and are not critical for an authentication tool. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it 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?
The sole parameter 'token' is described in detail: it is optional, and the description explains that providing it performs a session-only login, while omitting it returns a link. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's basic 'string, not required' definition, fully covering the parameter's semantics and usage.
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: authenticating a user for IDE agents. It explains both options for login (permanent via config header or session-only via token) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'marketplace' by focusing on authentication. The verb 'authenticate' is expanded with concrete instructions, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 instructions, contrasting the two authentication methods and when to use each: adding the token to the server config for a permanent connection versus passing the token as an argument for a session-only login. It also explains how to obtain the token (call with no args to get a link). This gives clear guidance on when and how to invoke the tool, effectively covering the 'when to use vs. alternatives' aspect.
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 marketplace tool is a multi-purpose container that overlaps with the direct domain tool (it can invoke it) and also includes a report_bug sub-action duplicating the standalone report_bug. Additionally, authenticate and connect both deal with credentials/connection status, creating ambiguous boundaries.
Tool names are individually descriptive but follow mixed conventions: single verbs (authenticate, connect), nouns (marketplace, toolkit_info), verb_noun (report_bug, show_version), and a long domain-specific name. No consistent pattern, but the names are readable and not vague.
Despite the server being named 'Tribunal TRT11: Consulta Processual', only one of seven tools is dedicated to that purpose. The other six are platform-management tools that seem out of place for the declared scope, making the count inappropriate.
For the core legal consultation domain, the single tool covers the expected query operation without dead ends. However, the inclusion of unrelated platform tools detracts from the overall coherence, though it doesn't create gaps for the primary function.