Cursor Admin MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or pagination. For a tool that likely accesses sensitive usage data, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes specific metric examples. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidance from the purpose statement.

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?

Given the complexity of usage metrics and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., format, granularity), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a data-fetching tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented as epoch milliseconds for date ranges. The description adds marginal value by implying date-range filtering ('daily usage metrics'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get' and specifies the resource 'detailed daily usage metrics for the team', including concrete examples like 'lines added/deleted, AI suggestions, and model usage'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on usage metrics rather than spending data or team members, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_spending_data' or 'get_team_members'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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