Cursor Reviewer MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| CURSOR_API_KEY | No | API key for cursor-agent authentication in special environments (CI etc.). Not required if cursor-agent is already configured locally. |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| cursor.reviewC | Review deliverables via Cursor CLI (GPT‑5) and return review JSON only. |
| codex.reviewC | Review deliverables via Codex CLI and return review JSON only. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: codex.review uses Codex CLI, while cursor.review uses Cursor CLI with GPT-5. There is no overlap in functionality as each targets a different review system, making misselection unlikely.
Both tools follow a consistent naming pattern: they use a prefix (codex or cursor) followed by a dot and the action 'review'. This pattern is uniform across all tools, making them predictable and easy to identify.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a 'Cursor Reviewer' domain, as it lacks operations like listing reviews, updating reviews, or handling review feedback. The count is too low to support comprehensive review workflows.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a review system; it only provides review creation via two CLI methods, missing essential CRUD operations such as retrieving, updating, deleting reviews, or managing review-related data. This will likely cause agent failures in broader tasks.