cursor-history-mcp

by S2thend

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.4
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: backup creates archives, restore overwrites from archives, migrate moves/copies sessions, export formats output, list shows metadata, search finds by keyword, show displays full content, and year_pack generates analytics. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'cursor_history_[verb]', using snake_case and a clear verb (backup, export, list, migrate, restore, search, show, year_pack). This allows an agent to predict tool names easily.
Tool Count5/5
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing Cursor chat history. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or bloat. The count fits the domain perfectly.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core operations: list, show, search (read), export (output), backup/restore (persistence), migrate (move/copy), and year_pack (analytics). A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated delete tool, though migrate can achieve deletion indirectly. Overall, it's comprehensive for the domain.
Average 3.7/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on January 11, 2026
- 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?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool exports and returns formatted content, but does not mention whether the session is modified, any permissions needed, or the nature of the returned content.
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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids waste, though it could be slightly expanded for context.
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?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential export functionality but lacks details on the return value structure and behavioral nuances, making it marginally adequate.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, except for mentioning 'as shown in list output' for sessionIndex, which provides context.
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 exports a Cursor AI chat session to Markdown or JSON format. It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like cursor_history_show, which may also display a session.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cursor_history_backup or cursor_history_show. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a portable archive that can be restored later, but does not clarify whether the backup reads or modifies the original history, whether permissions are required, or if there are any side effects. This is insufficient for a safe invocation.
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 two sentences long, clearly front-loading the core purpose and a key trait (portable archive). Every word earns its place with no fluff.
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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality but lacks details on what the backup includes, size limits, or return value. It is adequate but not complete.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'portable archive' but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (outputPath and force defaults).
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 action ('Create a backup') and the resource ('all Cursor AI chat history'), with the additional context that the output is a portable archive. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'export' tool, the term 'backup' implies a comprehensive snapshot for restoration, which is distinct.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cursor_history_export or cursor_history_restore. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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?
No annotations; description implies read-only but doesn't confirm. Includes content scope (messages, tool calls, responses) but omits auth requirements, data source, or side effects.
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?
Single sentence with no redundancy, front-loaded with action and target.
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?
Simple tool; schema covers only param. Description explains output includes messages/tool calls/responses. Lacks return structure or format, but adequate for typical show tool.
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 already describes sessionIndex with meaning (1-based, from list). Description adds no extra parameter info beyond schema, achieving baseline.
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 tool retrieves full session content, distinguishing it from siblings like list (indexed listing) and search (querying). Verb 'show' matches resource 'history'.
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 vs. siblings. Doesn't mention prerequisite of list to obtain sessionIndex or alternatives like search.
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, the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only search operation, which is adequate, but it does not disclose any limitations, performance characteristics, or permissions required. The description is factual but minimal.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output. Every word contributes value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.
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?
For a simple search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it searches and what it returns. While it does not detail the exact return format, the phrase 'matching sessions with context around each match' gives sufficient guidance for an agent to understand the output.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter's purpose and constraints. The description does not add any additional semantic information beyond summarizing the parameters, thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'all Cursor AI chat sessions', specifying it finds a keyword or phrase and returns matching sessions with context. This is distinct from siblings like cursor_history_list (likely lists all sessions) or cursor_history_show (shows a specific session), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 for searching chat history but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cursor_history_list or cursor_history_show. No when-not or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from context.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions returning recent sessions with metadata but does not specify sorting order, pagination behavior, or any constraints like rate limits. Adequate but not thorough.
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, front-loaded with action and return info. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given 3 parameters, all documented, and no output schema, description could be more complete by explicitly stating pagination via limit/offset and default sorting. Currently leaves some implicit.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what schema provides; it only hints at workspace in output metadata.
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 it lists Cursor AI chat sessions with specific metadata. Verb 'list' and resource are explicit. Distinguishes from siblings like cursor_history_search which is for searching.
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?
Implicitly clear: use for listing recent sessions, not for searching or exporting. However, no explicit 'when to use' vs alternatives, nor exclusions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly calls out 'Read-only operation' and 'sanitized JSON', which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention performance implications or potential side effects like long processing time.
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 two sentences, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value.
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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality and safety. It mentions the output format (JSON summary + prompt template). Could be improved by explaining 'sanitized' or typical processing time.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. It only gives high-level output summary.
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 the verb 'generate', the resource 'year-in-review data package from Cursor AI chat history', and the output (sanitized JSON summary plus prompt template). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search' or 'list' by being specifically for annual analysis.
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 mentions it's read-only, implying safety, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like cursor_history_search or cursor_history_show. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.
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?
The description prominently warns about the destructive nature when moving, noting that the original is deleted. It suggests a precautionary backup. However, it omits details like permission requirements or behavior if the destination workspace already contains sessions.
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 short and impactful, front-loading the destructive warning. Every sentence adds value, and no space is wasted.
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?
While the description covers the core function and behavioral highlights, it could further explain prerequisites (e.g., destination workspace must exist) or error handling. Given the tool's complexity and no output schema, it is mostly complete but not exhaustive.
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?
All parameters are described in the input schema, and the description adds useful context: session indexes are 1-based as shown in list output, destination is an absolute path, and mode effects are clarified. This adds meaningful beyond schema.
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 identifies the tool's purpose: moving or copying chat sessions between workspaces. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning backup as a separate action and by specifying the destructive nature of the 'move' mode.
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 a recommendation to create a backup first, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies copying is safer, but lacks clear conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the destructive behavior: it uses '⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE', states 'OVERWRITES your current chat history', and recommends creating a backup. This is transparent and goes beyond minimal expectations.
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 one short, highly efficient sentence with a warning symbol front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is clear with no wasted text.
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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values, but the restore operation's outcome is typically success/failure. It covers the key behavioral aspects (destructiveness, parameter usage, backup recommendation). Minor gaps exist, like what happens on invalid backup file, but overall it is adequate.
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 description coverage is 100% and describes both parameters (backupPath and force) adequately. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 it restores Cursor AI chat history from a backup file, with a specific verb (restore) and resource (chat history). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cursor_history_backup (which creates backups) and cursor_history_export (exports to other formats).
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 explicitly warns about the destructive nature and recommends creating a backup first, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives beyond the implicit sibling context.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![cursor-history-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/S2thend/cursor-history-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/S2thend/cursor-history-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cursor-history-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/S2thend/cursor-history-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/S2thend/cursor-history-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/S2thend/cursor-history-mcp'

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