cursor-api-mcp

upsert_repo_blocklists

Update or insert blocklist patterns for repositories by providing a JSON array of URLs and their associated pattern lists.

Instructions

Upsert repository blocklist patterns (POST .../repos/upsert).

Args: repos_json: JSON array of {url, patterns[]} objects.

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": {
      "repos_json": "<repos_json>"
    },
    "name": "upsert_repo_blocklists"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repos_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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Upsert' without explaining idempotency, partial updates, or side effects on existing blocklists. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is very short and front-loaded with the purpose and parameter hint. While concise, some additional context (e.g., response format) could be added without harming conciseness.

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?

Although there is an output schema, the description lacks essential context such as error handling, rate limits, or what happens on conflicts. For a write tool with one parameter, it is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description adds meaning by specifying repos_json as a JSON array of {url, patterns[]} objects. However, the exact structure (e.g., required fields, pattern format) is not fully detailed, leaving ambiguity.

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 verb 'Upsert' and the resource 'repository blocklist patterns', which distinguishes it from related tools like list_team_repo_blocklists and delete_repo_blocklist. However, it does not elaborate on what 'upsert' entails.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

Deploy Server