Cursor Agent MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.