Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wb-cursor-bridge

wb-cursor-bridge

by jsyzc2019
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

cursor_status

Poll a Cursor CLI job to check status and retrieve only new events; optionally wait up to 55 seconds for it to settle before returning results.

Instructions

Poll a job. Pass waitSeconds (max 55) to block briefly until it settles, and since to receive only new events.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "jobId": "<jobId>"
    },
    "name": "cursor_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobIdYes
sinceNoReturn only events after this cursor
waitSecondsNoSeconds to wait, 0-55

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions blocking briefly until the job settles and cursor-based event filtering, but it omits important behavior such as timeout handling, error cases, permissions, and what the response contains.

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 core action. Every sentence provides useful invocation detail without waste.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what polling returns. It explains how to call the tool but not what job status or events the agent will receive, leaving a significant gap for a status-check tool.

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 schema documents since and waitSeconds, and the description reinforces their meaning. However, jobId is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the description adds little beyond the schema for the two described parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Poll a job.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cursor_run, cursor_cancel, and cursor_list. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to select the tool.

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 usage through 'Poll a job' and explains how to use waitSeconds and since. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as cursor_list or cursor_diff.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools