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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.