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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.