remove_cursor_enhancePROJECT-SCOPED: this call acts only on the explicit project_id and returns the project identity with its result. Put the original mouse pointer back (re-derives from the untouched source).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | Required immutable scope for this call. Copy the id from list_projects/open_project/project_state; the active-project pointer is never used to guess. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotent and non-destructive hints; the description adds that it re-derives from the untouched source and returns the project identity, clarifying behavior. It also emphasizes project-scoped action.
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 brief and front-loads the key scoping constraint, then states the action. No wasted words.
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 single-parameter, idempotent revert tool, it covers scope, action, and return value. It does not address what happens if no enhancement exists, but given idempotency, that is minor.
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 already fully documents project_id with coverage 100%. The tool description reinforces the scope but does not add significant new meaning beyond the 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 action: 'Put the original mouse pointer back' and notes it re-derives from the untouched source. It also clarifies the project scope. It does not explicitly name the sibling enhance_cursor, but the action is 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 implies it is used to undo cursor enhancement, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus enhance_cursor or other remove_* tools. The schema description gives guidance on the project_id parameter, but not on when to use this tool.
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.