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?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the browser login flow, token handling, permanent vs. session-only behavior, and the no-args link behavior. It does not mention return values or error cases, but the added context meaningfully enriches the annotation surface. 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 compact but poorly structured, with run-on sentences and an awkward opening phrase ('MCP.AI for IDE agents (Cursor, etc.)'). All information earns its place, but the front-loading and readability suffer from informal, stream-of-consciousness phrasing.
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?
For a simple, one-optional-parameter auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflows: permanent header setup, session token paste, and no-args link generation. It lacks details on response format and error behavior, but the core use cases are sufficiently documented.
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 provides no description for the optional token parameter, but the description fully compensates: it identifies the token as a JWT, explains it enables session-only login, and clarifies that omitting the parameter returns the login link. This is a strong, actionable parameter explanation.
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 and either obtaining/using an access token. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling webposto_login_check by focusing on login and token exchange, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.
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 modes: permanent connection via config header, session-only via passing a JWT, and no-args call to get the login link. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons with alternatives, but gives clear enough context for when each invocation style should be used.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: connect and toolkit_info both report connection status, authenticate and connect both deal with auth/connection, and marketplace alone covers search, describe, invoke, install, subscribe, and bug reporting, duplicating the standalone report_bug. The two webPosto tools are distinct but the broader set blurs boundaries.
The generic platform tools use inconsistent styles: single verbs (authenticate, connect), a noun (marketplace), and noun_underscore (toolkit_info). Only the webPosto tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_accounts, login_check), but the prefix and structure differ from the rest. No uniform convention is applied.
8 tools is within a reasonable range and not excessive. However, several are generic platform utilities that overlap, and the marketplace tool is a monolithic catch-all that arguably should be split into multiple focused tools. The count itself is acceptable, though the distribution is imbalanced.
As a server named webPosto, the toolset lacks any actual webPosto operations beyond listing accounts and validating login credentials. There are no tools for creating, reading, updating, or deleting posts, managing content, or performing other core webPosto functions. The marketplace tool can indirectly invoke other MCPs, but the stated domain is severely under-covered.