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 'run' which implies execution, but doesn't describe what happens during execution (e.g., does it call an external process, use AI models, modify files?), what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, or what errors might occur. The 'legacy single-shot' hint suggests it might be deprecated or have limitations, but this isn't elaborated.

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 core action, consisting of a single sentence. There's no wasted text, though it could be more informative. The structure is efficient, but the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than optimal clarity.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, most parameters, error handling, or output format details. For a tool with many configuration options and no structured hints, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 7 parameters, the description must compensate but only mentions 'prompt and desired output format', covering just 2 of 7 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'extra_args', 'cwd', 'executable', 'model', or 'force' do, leaving most parameters undocumented. The baseline would be lower than 3 given the poor schema coverage and inadequate compensation.

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', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'cursor-agent' actually does (e.g., code generation, analysis, execution) and doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like cursor_agent_analyze_files or cursor_agent_chat. The 'legacy single-shot' qualifier adds some context but doesn't fully 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It mentions 'legacy single-shot', which might imply this is an older or simpler alternative, but doesn't specify what scenarios it's suited for, what prerequisites exist, or when to choose other tools like cursor_agent_chat for interactive use. Without explicit usage context, the agent must infer from tool names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.