cursor-mcp

Cursor: whoami

cursor_whoami

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a Cursor API key by returning the account name, creation date, and owning email associated with it.

Instructions

Verify the Cursor API key and return its name, creation date, and owning email.

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_whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`createdAt`	No
`userEmail`	No
`apiKeyName`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact return content (name, creation date, email), which is not in the annotations. It accurately reflects a non-destructive, side-effect-free operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and output. There is no redundancy or filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know to invoke it correctly. The output schema documents the return format, so the description need not elaborate further.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is completely covered (100% coverage trivially), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed since there are no parameters to document.

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 specific action ('Verify'), a clear resource ('the Cursor API key'), and the exact output fields (name, creation date, owning email). It is unambiguous and distinct from all sibling tools, which handle different resources like models, repos, or runs.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever you need to confirm API key identity or retrieve its metadata. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, but given its unique role among siblings, the context is sufficient for an agent to select it.

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