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 declare idempotentHint=true and no destructive action. The description adds context about side effects: modifying server config for permanent access, browser login steps, and session-only scope. It doesn't describe the return output, but that's not critical given no output schema. No contradiction.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then detailed usage. It is somewhat dense but every sentence provides necessary information, though it could be slightly tighter without losing clarity.
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?
Despite no output schema and moderate complexity (two auth modes), the description covers the workflow well: browser login, token copy, config header, session token, and no-arg option. It doesn't specify return values but that's acceptable given tools often return links or success messages implicitly.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains the only parameter (token): it's a JWT to paste for session-only login, and explains the alternative of no args for link generation. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.
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 for MCP.AI IDE agents. It specifies the verb (authenticate) and resource (MCP.AI), and distinguishes from siblings like connect or marketplace by focusing specifically on token-based auth flow.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for login, with two distinct options (permanent config header vs. session token) and even explains when to call with no args to get a link. It also implicitly contrasts with other auth methods (sibling tools) by focusing on this server's auth.
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 are genuinely easy to confuse: `youtube_comments` and `youtube_comment_threads` both target top-level comments, and the many `youtube_channel_*` tab endpoints can blur together. The descriptions often help by specifying intended use, but agents still need to read carefully to make the right selection.
Most YouTube tools share the `youtube_` prefix and readable snake_case, but the verb/noun structure is inconsistent: `youtube_search` and `youtube_download` are verb-first while `youtube_channel_videos`, `youtube_c_home_feed`, and `youtube_domment_moderate` follow different forms. The non-YouTube platform tools like `marketplace`, `oolkit_info`, and `authenticate` break the naming family further.
35 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy toolset. Many tools are narrow channel tab views or small variants like `youtube_channel_shorts` vs `youtube_channel_shorts_post`, and the set includes deprecated/edge-case endpoints plus unrelated platform utilities.
The surface covers search, channel tabs, trending, related videos, downloads, and excellent comment CRUD/moderation coverage. However, named tools are missing common operations like video detail lookup, playlist mutation, uploads, and channel editing; these require the `youtube_api` escape hatch instead. This makes the named surface functional but not fully self-sufficient.