Cursor Agent MCP Server

by Darkstar326

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have overlapping purposes that could cause confusion, particularly between cursor_agent_chat and cursor_agent_run which both involve prompt-based interaction with cursor-agent. Additionally, cursor_agent_raw is described as 'advanced' but its functionality might overlap with other tools, creating ambiguity in tool selection for specific tasks.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with the prefix 'cursor_agent_' followed by a verb_noun combination (e.g., analyze_files, chat, edit_file). This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to parse, with no deviations in naming conventions.
Tool Count4/5
With 7 tools, the count is reasonable for a server focused on cursor-agent interactions, covering analysis, chat, editing, planning, raw commands, running, and searching. It is slightly on the lower side but still well-scoped for its purpose, with each tool appearing to serve a distinct role in the workflow.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key operations for interacting with cursor-agent, including analysis, chat, file editing, task planning, raw command execution, running prompts, and repository search. Minor gaps might exist, such as lack of tools for managing agent settings or handling multi-step workflows, but core functionalities are adequately represented for the domain.
Average 2.4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Analyze' suggests a read operation, but the description doesn't clarify whether this modifies files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the analysis output looks like. 'Prompt-based wrapper' hints at AI/LLM involvement but lacks specifics about model behavior, processing time, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief with two concise phrases. 'Analyze one or more paths; optional prompt' is front-loaded with the core functionality, and 'Prompt-based wrapper' adds supplementary context. No wasted words, though more substance would improve utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what analysis means, what gets returned, how parameters interact, or when to use this versus sibling tools. The description provides minimal context for a complex tool with extensive configuration options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 9 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'paths' should contain, what 'prompt' does, what 'extra_args' are for, or the purpose of any other parameters. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Analyze one or more paths; optional prompt' which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'analyze' means specifically and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like cursor_agent_search_repo or cursor_agent_raw. The phrase 'Prompt-based wrapper' adds some context but remains ambiguous about the analysis scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like cursor_agent_search_repo (for searching) and cursor_agent_raw (for direct execution), there's no indication of when file analysis is preferred over those approaches. The description mentions 'optional prompt' but doesn't explain when a prompt should or shouldn't be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'prompt-based wrapper' and 'no CLI subcommand required', hinting at an AI-driven editing process, but fails to disclose critical traits such as whether edits are destructive, require specific permissions, have rate limits, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 12 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, consisting of two concise sentences. However, the second sentence 'Prompt-based wrapper; no CLI subcommand required' could be more integrated, but overall it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high complexity (12 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and usage context, making it inadequate for an AI agent to effectively select and invoke this tool compared to its siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 12 parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters like 'file', 'instruction', 'apply', 'dry_run', etc., failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter meanings and usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Edit a file with an instruction' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'edit' entails (e.g., content modification, formatting) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like cursor_agent_analyze_files or cursor_agent_raw. The additional note 'Prompt-based wrapper; no CLI subcommand required' adds some context but doesn't clarify the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cursor_agent_analyze_files or cursor_agent_run. The description mentions it's a 'prompt-based wrapper' but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other tools, leaving the agent without clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Prompt-based wrapper' which hints at LLM interaction but doesn't explain what this means operationally - whether it makes API calls, has rate limits, requires authentication, or what the execution model is. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 9 words, with no wasted language. However, the 'Prompt-based wrapper' phrase feels tacked on and doesn't integrate well with the first part. While appropriately brief, it may be too terse given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is woefully inadequate. It doesn't explain what kind of plan is generated, what format it returns, how the parameters interact, or what the 'Prompt-based wrapper' actually means. The description fails to provide sufficient context for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 9 parameters, the description provides almost no parameter information. It mentions 'goal' and 'constraints' which map to two parameters, but the other 7 parameters (output_format, extra_args, cwd, executable, model, force, echo_prompt) are completely undocumented. The description doesn't compensate for the significant schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Generate a plan for a goal with optional constraints' which provides a basic verb+resource (generate plan for goal). However, it's vague about what type of plan or what domain this applies to, and the 'Prompt-based wrapper' phrase adds confusion rather than clarity. It doesn't distinguish this planning tool from potential alternatives like analysis or chat tools among its siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings like cursor_agent_analyze_files or cursor_agent_chat. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or what makes this planning tool different from other agent tools in the server. The 'optional constraints' mention is minimal context but doesn't constitute meaningful usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. It mentions passing arguments after common flags but doesn't explain what happens during execution (e.g., whether it runs commands, returns output, handles errors, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits). The example ['search','--query','foo'] hints at search functionality but lacks context about the underlying system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences and zero waste. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a helpful example. However, it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning it's for executing commands rather than just 'providing' arguments.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does (e.g., executes commands, returns results), how parameters interact, or what to expect from outputs. The example helps but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral context and parameter documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 9 parameters, the description must compensate but adds minimal meaning. It only references 'argv' with an example, ignoring other parameters like 'print', 'output_format', 'extra_args', etc. The example clarifies argv usage but doesn't explain parameter relationships or overall tool behavior, leaving most parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'provide[s] raw argv array to pass after common flags' which indicates it executes commands with arguments, but it's vague about what specific resource or system it operates on. It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like cursor_agent_run or cursor_agent_search_repo, which likely have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'common flags' but doesn't specify what those are or when this raw approach is preferred over more structured sibling tools like cursor_agent_run. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'run' which implies execution, but doesn't describe what happens during execution (e.g., does it call an external process, use AI models, modify files?), what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, or what errors might occur. The 'legacy single-shot' hint suggests it might be deprecated or have limitations, but this isn't elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action, consisting of a single sentence. There's no wasted text, though it could be more informative. The structure is efficient, but the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than optimal clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, most parameters, error handling, or output format details. For a tool with many configuration options and no structured hints, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 7 parameters, the description must compensate but only mentions 'prompt and desired output format', covering just 2 of 7 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'extra_args', 'cwd', 'executable', 'model', or 'force' do, leaving most parameters undocumented. The baseline would be lower than 3 given the poor schema coverage and inadequate compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Run cursor-agent with a prompt and desired output format', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'cursor-agent' actually does (e.g., code generation, analysis, execution) and doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like cursor_agent_analyze_files or cursor_agent_chat. The 'legacy single-shot' qualifier adds some context but doesn't fully clarify the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It mentions 'legacy single-shot', which might imply this is an older or simpler alternative, but doesn't specify what scenarios it's suited for, what prerequisites exist, or when to choose other tools like cursor_agent_chat for interactive use. Without explicit usage context, the agent must infer from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Prompt-based wrapper,' which suggests it might involve AI or interactive elements, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short phrases, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The first phrase covers the core purpose, but the second ('Prompt-based wrapper') is vague and doesn't add substantial value. It's front-loaded but lacks depth needed for a tool with many parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a search tool with many configuration options, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description only vaguely references 'include/exclude patterns' and 'Prompt-based wrapper,' which doesn't explain the semantics of parameters like query, output_format, cwd, executable, model, force, echo_prompt, or extra_args. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search repository code with include/exclude patterns.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('repository code'), and key functionality ('include/exclude patterns'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cursor_agent_analyze_files or cursor_agent_raw, which might also involve code analysis or execution.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. The phrase 'Prompt-based wrapper' hints at a context where prompts are used, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like cursor_agent_analyze_files for analysis or cursor_agent_raw for direct execution. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It mentions optional parameters but doesn't describe what 'chat' entails operationally - whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, has rate limits, requires authentication, returns structured data, or has side effects. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and mentions key optional parameters without unnecessary elaboration. Every word serves a purpose in this minimal description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how chat interactions work, error conditions, or behavioral characteristics. The description leaves too many questions unanswered given the tool's complexity and lack of supporting structured documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 8 parameters, the description must compensate but only mentions 'prompt and optional model/force/output_format' - covering just 4 of 8 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'extra_args', 'cwd', 'executable', or 'echo_prompt' do, nor provides context for how 'force' or 'model' affect behavior. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Chat') and resource ('cursor-agent'), specifying the primary action. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_files' or 'edit_file' by focusing on conversational interaction rather than file operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'cursor_agent_raw' which might also involve chat-like functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this chat tool is appropriate compared to 'cursor_agent_raw' or other siblings, nor does it specify any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for chat interactions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cursor-agent-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Darkstar326/cursor-agent-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Darkstar326/cursor-agent-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cursor-agent-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Darkstar326/cursor-agent-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Darkstar326/cursor-agent-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Darkstar326/cursor-agent-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server