cursor_list_modelsDiscover accepted model IDs for launching a cloud agent—omit to use the account default.
List model ids accepted when launching a cloud agent. Omit the model to use the account default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| models | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that omitting the model selects the account default, which is useful beyond annotations. It does not disclose other behaviors like list ordering or deprecation status, but given the annotations' coverage, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage note follows immediately. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema present. The description explains what it does and the default behavior. The output schema handles return format, so nothing needed by an agent to call it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the rules, 0 params merits a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to explain, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'model ids' with the context of launching a cloud agent. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on models, not repos, agents, or runs. The added note about omitting the model for the default further clarifies its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: it lists valid model ids for launching a cloud agent, and the note about omitting the model for the default gives practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough, but explicit exclusions would make it a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.