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 indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool opens a browser for login, returns a link when called with no args, and that the token can be used for a permanent or session-only connection. It also notes the token is a JWT. This adds value beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail side effects like browser opening or token storage.
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 a single paragraph but is well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise, covering the key usage modes without excessive detail. The sentences are efficient, though the structure could be improved with bullet points or clearer separation of the two usage modes. Overall, it earns its place with no fluff.
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 is fairly complete. It explains the two usage modes, the best practice, and the session-only alternative. It doesn't mention error cases or what happens after authentication, but for a simple auth tool with no output schema, this is adequate. The description covers the essential context for an agent to use 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 schema has one optional parameter 'token' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that the token is a JWT and that it can be passed as { token: "<jwt>" } for session-only login. It also clarifies that calling with no args returns the login link. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify the token's format or length in detail.
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 the user by logging in via browser and obtaining an access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on authentication, while siblings like 'connect' and 'marketplace' serve different functions. The verb 'authenticate' plus the explanation of login and token acquisition makes the purpose specific and clear.
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: it explains two ways to use the tool (permanent config-based token vs. session-only token), and specifies when to call with a token argument versus no arguments. It also gives a best-practice recommendation (adding to config as a header) and mentions the alternative of pasting a token for session-only login. This is clear and actionable.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: authenticate for login, connect for status, marketplace for finding/running MCPs, report_bug for feedback, show_version for version info, toolkit_info for installed tools, and the single domain tool for TRT9 queries. No overlap exists between them.
Names are inconsistent: first six are single words or short verbs/nouns (authenticate, connect, marketplace) with occasional underscores (report_bug, show_version), while the domain tool uses a long snake_case with a domain prefix (tribunal_trt9_processo_consultar). No consistent verb_noun pattern or style unifies the set.
Seven tools is a reasonable count, but six are generic platform utilities while only one addresses the server's stated purpose (Consulta Processual). This feels like a platform server with one domain tool bolted on, slightly mismatched with the server name but still within an acceptable range.
For the domain, only one query tool exists, which may suffice for a simple lookup but lacks any additional operations (e.g., filtering, batch queries, or status checks). The platform utilities are comprehensive, but the core domain surface is minimal and might leave agents without sufficient coverage for varied consultation needs.