Cursor Agent MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Prompt-based wrapper,' which suggests it might involve AI or interactive elements, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise with two short phrases, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The first phrase covers the core purpose, but the second ('Prompt-based wrapper') is vague and doesn't add substantial value. It's front-loaded but lacks depth needed for a tool with many 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 the complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a search tool with many configuration options, more context is needed to guide effective 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%, meaning none of the 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description only vaguely references 'include/exclude patterns' and 'Prompt-based wrapper,' which doesn't explain the semantics of parameters like query, output_format, cwd, executable, model, force, echo_prompt, or extra_args. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search repository code with include/exclude patterns.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('repository code'), and key functionality ('include/exclude patterns'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cursor_agent_analyze_files or cursor_agent_raw, which might also involve code analysis or execution.

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 usage guidance. The phrase 'Prompt-based wrapper' hints at a context where prompts are used, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like cursor_agent_analyze_files for analysis or cursor_agent_raw for direct execution. No explicit when/when-not scenarios 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.