Cursor Agent MCP Server

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.