Execute cursor-agent commands with prompts to analyze code, search repositories, and edit files while managing token usage for workspace operations.
Run cursor-agent with a prompt and desired output format (legacy single-shot).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | Yes | ||
| output_format | No | text | |
| extra_args | No | ||
| cwd | No | ||
| executable | No | ||
| model | No | ||
| force | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'legacy single-shot' which hints at behavioral traits (single interaction vs. chat), but doesn't disclose critical details like what 'cursor-agent' does, whether it's read-only or mutating, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'run' entails. The description is insufficient for a tool with 7 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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. However, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity, as it omits necessary context for understanding the tool's purpose and parameters.
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 high complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'cursor-agent' is, what 'run' does, the meaning of most parameters, or expected return values. The minimal information provided is inadequate 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'prompt and desired output format', which covers only 2 of 7 parameters (prompt and output_format). It doesn't explain the semantics of extra_args, cwd, executable, model, or force, 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 'Run cursor-agent with a prompt and desired output format (legacy single-shot)', which provides a basic verb ('Run') and resource ('cursor-agent') but is vague about what 'cursor-agent' actually does. It distinguishes from some siblings by mentioning 'legacy single-shot', but doesn't clearly differentiate from all alternatives like 'cursor_agent_chat' or 'cursor_agent_raw'.
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 minimal guidance with 'legacy single-shot', implying this is an older or simpler version compared to other tools, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'cursor_agent_chat' or 'cursor_agent_plan_task'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.