cursor-mcp

Cursor: inspect workspace

cursor_inspect_workspace

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check API-key identity and entitlement, and inspect the workspace control surface without listing repositories.

Instructions

Inspect API-key identity, entitlement, and the workspace-control surface. Does not list repositories.

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": "cursor_inspect_workspace"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`kind`	No
`tool`	No
`action`	No
`reason`	No
`status`	No
`control`	No
`controls`	No
`evidence`	No
`authority`	No
`nextSteps`	No
`entitlement`	No
`requiredReadback`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those hints by specifying what is inspected and explicitly excluding repository listing, all without contradicting the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main scope and closed with a useful negative. Every clause earns its place; there is no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 parameterless, safe, inspection tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only completeness gap is selection guidance: it does not explain how this differs from the similarly-named cursor_whoami and cursor_list_workspace_controls tools.

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 100% schema coverage, so the schema leaves no ambiguity. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter detail; the absence of explanation is acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and names concrete resources: API-key identity, entitlement, and the workspace-control surface. It also states a negative scope ('Does not list repositories'), which separates it from cursor_list_repos, but it does not differentiate itself from the overlapping cursor_whoami and cursor_list_workspace_controls siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided. 'Does not list repositories' gives one exclusion, but in a sibling group with cursor_whoami and cursor_list_workspace_controls, the agent is left to infer which inspection surface this tool covers versus its peers.

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