cursor_mcp_installer

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 states the action ('install') but doesn't describe what installation entails (e.g., whether it modifies system files, requires permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure). For a tool that likely performs system-level operations, this lack of detail 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the core function.

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 of installing software (potentially involving system changes) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'install' means operationally, what gets installed where, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, more descriptive context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (path, args, env) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for 'env' or typical use cases for 'args'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('install') and resource ('MCP server whose code is cloned locally on your computer'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'install_repo_mcp_server' beyond the 'cloned locally' phrasing, which implies but doesn't explicitly contrast with repository-based installation.

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, including its sibling 'install_repo_mcp_server'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having the code already cloned), exclusions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between installation methods.

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