cursor-api-mcp

list_repositories

Retrieve the list of GitHub repositories accessible through Cursor's GitHub App. Helps manage repositories connected to your Cursor account.

Instructions

List GitHub repos accessible via Cursor's GitHub App (GET /v1/repositories).

Strict rate limits: about 1 request/user/minute and 30/user/hour. Can be slow.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_repositories"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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 adds value by disclosing strict rate limits (1 request/user/minute, 30/user/hour) and potential slowness. It does not contradict annotations. Minor gap: does not explicitly state it's a read operation, which is implied.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action and then add critical context (rate limits, performance). No unnecessary words, every sentence earns its place.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description provides rate limits and performance caveats, which are helpful. It is nearly complete for a simple list tool, though it could mention the output structure briefly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter info, but that is acceptable. The baseline for no parameters is 4.

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 it lists GitHub repos accessible via Cursor's GitHub App, with the specific endpoint. It is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_agents or list_models.

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 includes rate limits which imply cautious usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The usage context is implicit but not fully guided.

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

Deploy Server