Send steering text or queue a follow-up message to a Cursor Cloud agent using its bc ID, optionally matching an expected run ID.
Extended: InjectBackgroundComposerContext (steer / queue message).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bcId | Yes | Agent bc id | |
| text | Yes | Steering text | |
| expectedRunId | No | Expected run id |
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It indicates an action ("steer / queue message"), but does not disclose permissions, mutating effects, expectedRunId handling, reversibility, or response behavior.
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 very short, but much of that brevity comes from cryptic internal terminology rather than useful front-loaded information. "Extended: InjectBackgroundComposerContext" does not help an agent understand the operation efficiently.
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 likely mutating agent-control tool with three parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is largely incomplete. The schema covers parameters, but purpose, usage, and behavioral impact remain unexplained.
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%, so bcId, text, and expectedRunId are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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 is mostly internal jargon: "InjectBackgroundComposerContext" plus "steer / queue message." It hints at sending steering text to an agent, but does not clearly define the resource, scope, or how it differs from siblings such as create_followup_run or list_pending_followups.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase "steer / queue message" implies a context, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.