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 and non-destructive, so description adds little behavioral context beyond token handling. No contradiction with annotations.
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 informative and front-loaded, though slightly verbose; every sentence adds value.
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 no output schema, the description explains the two authentication methods adequately, though it could mention what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation).
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 0% description coverage for the token parameter, but the description explains it is a JWT for session login and also covers the no-arg case, compensating well.
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 is for authentication, specifying two methods (permanent config header vs session token) and distinguishing itself from sibling tools like '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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool and how to use it (with or without token parameter), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or 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.
Tools are split by action (e.g., separate list, get, write tools for each resource), which makes boundaries somewhat clear, but the sheer number of similar tools (62 total) and repeated descriptions create confusion. An agent must carefully read each tool to pick the correct one, especially when multiple write tools exist for the same resource.
Naming conventions are inconsistent. Some tools use `webdiet_<resource>_write_<action>`, others use `webdiet_<resource>_<action>` (e.g., `webdiet_calculo_energetico_write_create` vs. `webdiet_create_antropometria`). There are also tools like `webdiet_food_search` that break the pattern. This makes it hard to predict tool names.
62 tools is excessive for a nutritionist platform. Many action variants (list, get, create, save, publish, delete, etc.) are split into separate tools rather than parameterized within a single tool. This bloats the tool list and could be consolidated to ~20-30 tools without losing functionality.
The server covers a very wide range of features: patient management, anamnesis, anthropometry, energy calculations, prescriptions (with multiple methods), financials, pre-consultation questionnaires, orientations, food search, file upload, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool for meal reactions), but overall the surface is comprehensive for its domain.