Show all Cursor SDK agents with their state, elapsed time, cost, and latest activity, filtered by session, directory, or all.
List agents with their state, elapsed time, cost and latest activity. One line each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | session (default) = spawned by this Claude session; cwd = this directory; all = everything. | |
| activeOnly | No | Exclude finished, errored and cancelled agents. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return fields and one-line-per-agent format, which partially substitutes for the missing output schema, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, limits, or auth requirements.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return content, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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 two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and its format. The remaining gap is behavioral (ordering, filtering interaction with scope), but nothing critical is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both scope (enum, default documented) and activeOnly fully explained in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (agents), and enumerates the returned fields (state, elapsed time, cost, latest activity). Against siblings like inspect and spawn, the plural enumeration and 'One line each' clearly mark it as the overview tool, though it never names the contrasting sibling explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. 'One line each' hints at a summary role versus the detail-oriented inspect sibling, but the routing decision is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.