cursor-api-mcp

add_billing_group_members

Add members to a billing group by providing the group ID and a JSON array of user IDs.

Instructions

Add members to a billing group (POST /teams/groups/{id}/members).

Args: group_id: Billing group id. user_ids_json: JSON array of encoded user ids.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>",
      "user_ids_json": "<user_ids_json>"
    },
    "name": "add_billing_group_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`group_id`	Yes
`user_ids_json`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions POST for creation but does not disclose whether membership is additive or replacing, nor any permissions or idempotency. Missing critical mutation details.

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?

Two-line description plus structured parameter list. Action is front-loaded in the first sentence. No redundant information.

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?

Lacks completeness for a mutation tool: no info on return value, side effects, authorization, or behavior on duplicates. Output schema exists but description does not leverage it to explain response.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description provides meaningful semantics: group_id is a 'Billing group id' and user_ids_json is a 'JSON array of encoded user ids', clarifying type and format. Falls short on explaining 'encoded' or duplicate handling.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Add members to a billing group' and specifies the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove_billing_group_members' and 'add_organization_group_members'.

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?

No explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies billing group context, but 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.

Deploy Server