Cursor MCP Installer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add') but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it modifies configuration files, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a configuration mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool that mutates configuration (implied by 'Add') with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error handling, nor does it help differentiate from sibling tools, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., 'path' vs 'command+args') or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Add') and resource ('any MCP server to Cursor's configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'install_local_mcp_server' or 'install_repo_mcp_server', which likely handle more specific installation scenarios.

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 its siblings ('install_local_mcp_server', 'install_repo_mcp_server'), nor does it mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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