Skip to main content
Glama
JaimeJunr

cursor-mcp-bridge

by JaimeJunr
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: delegate is for task execution, explore for read-only exploration, and follow_up for continuing sessions. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names use verb-style in lowercase, with follow_up using an underscore for the two-word name. The pattern is consistent and predictable.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools covering core operations (task delegation, codebase exploration, session continuation), the count is well-scoped for a bridge server and neither too sparse nor excessive.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the primary interactions with the Cursor CLI agent. A minor gap is the lack of session listing or cancellation, but the essential workflows are complete.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 39 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states that context is on the server side, omitting side effects, auth, rate limits, or failure behavior for invalid session_id.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Two sentences no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose; the second adds useful context about server-side state. Could be slightly more structured but efficient.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    No output schema; description does not explain return format, errors, or pagination. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., session_id purpose is clear from schema).

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description states 'Continue a previous Cursor session by session_id', providing a specific verb and resource. It implies a follow-up action distinct from siblings 'delegate' and 'explore', but does not explicitly differentiate.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies usage when a session_id exists and notes that context is retained server-side. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the agent has full tool access (read, edit, shell) and is cheap/fast, which gives important context. However, it does not disclose potential risks, error behavior, or whether operations are destructive, leaving gaps in transparency.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. It opens with the core purpose and then adds usage context efficiently.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers its purpose, capabilities, and when to use it. It lacks details about return values or error handling, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, e.g., it mentions 'cwd' but schema already explains it. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool delegates tasks to a Cursor CLI agent, specifying it runs headless and is cheap/fast with full tool access. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (explore, follow_up), only implying use cases for routine implementation and edits.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides clear usage guidance: it is intended for routine implementation, edits, and tasks where a cheaper model suffices. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that code never enters the agent's context (only the answer does), a key behavioral trait. It also hints at cost efficiency ('cheap counterpart'). No destructive or safety concerns are relevant.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is three sentences, each earning its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, uses simple language, and avoids redundancy.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    No output schema, but the description implies an answer is returned. For a read-only exploration tool, the description covers modes, parameters, and a key behavioral constraint (context isolation). Minor gap: could specify if errors are returned for missing files, but not critical.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral difference of omitting vs. providing the 'files' parameter and clarifies the 'question' parameter's optional behavior, going beyond the schema descriptions.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states 'Read-only codebase exploration' and explains two distinct modes (with/without files), effectively distinguishing its purpose from sibling tools like 'delegate' and 'follow_up'.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides clear guidance on when to use each mode (omit files for a general map, pass files for specific questions). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

cursor-mcp-bridge MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

cursor-mcp-bridge MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JaimeJunr/cursor-mcp-bridge'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server