cursor-api-mcp

delete_repo_blocklist

Remove a repository from the blocklist by providing its repo ID. This deletes the blocklist entry associated with that repository.

Instructions

Delete one repository blocklist entry (DELETE .../repos/{repoId}).

Args: repo_id: Blocklist repo id.

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": {
      "repo_id": "<repo_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_repo_blocklist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete', omitting details about idempotency, error behavior (e.g., if entry not found), permission requirements, or consequences. This is insufficient for a deletion tool.

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 short lines—with no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose, and it includes the HTTP method for clarity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple delete operation with one parameter and an output schema (though not shown), the description is adequate but lacks depth. It does not mention success/failure indicators, side effects, or permissions, leaving some ambiguity.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds 'repo_id: Blocklist repo id.' This barely clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema title 'Repo Id', leaving format, validation, and examples unknown.

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 'Delete one repository blocklist entry', which specifies the action (delete) and the resource (repository blocklist entry). It distinguishes from siblings like upsert_repo_blocklists (create/update) and list_team_repo_blocklists (list).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing ownership or admin permissions, nor does it contrast with other delete or blocklist tools.

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

Deploy Server