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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.