cursor-mcp

Cursor: list workspace controls

cursor_list_workspace_controls

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check which Cursor Cloud Agent workspace and account controls are supported, unverified, unsupported, or unavailable. Filter by read/write kind or status to know what you can use.

Instructions

List Cloud Agent workspace and account controls and whether each is supported, unverified, unsupported, or unavailable.

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_list_workspace_controls"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No	Keep only reads or only writes.
`status`	No	Keep controls whose read or write reports this status.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`controls`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope and status categories, but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, result limits, or authorization requirements; with annotations present, 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the full purpose with no filler. Every element is relevant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only listing tool with an output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description is sufficient. Optional filters are covered by the schema, and the description conveys the core purpose and result categories.

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% and both parameters have useful enum descriptions, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no meaningful parameter details beyond the schema, and it uses 'unavailable' where the schema specifies 'unavailable-on-plan', a minor inconsistency.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Cloud Agent workspace and account controls'), and it explicitly enumerates the status categories returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as cursor_get_workspace_control, which targets a single control.

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 the tool is for getting an overview of controls and their support status, and the optional filters suggest narrowing by read/write or status. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as cursor_get_workspace_control or cursor_inspect_workspace.

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