Skip to main content
Glama
phidn

Cursor Feedback MCP

by phidn
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Cursor Feedback MCP

Features

  • Text Feedback

  • Image Support

Feedback Demo

The interactive feedback UI allows you to paste images directly, making it easy to provide visual feedback and context. This is the main feature that makes this MCP tool unique.

Related MCP server: MCP Feedback Collector

Usage

  1. uv sync

  2. uv run server.py

  3. Configure in Cursor:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "interactive-feedback-mcp": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": [
        "--directory",
        "/Users/oplacrm/workspace/mcp/cursor-feedback",
        "run",
        "server.py"
      ],
      "timeout": 600,
      "autoApprove": [
        "interactive_feedback"
      ]
    }
  }
}

  1. Cursor rules

See .cursorrules file for the complete interactive feedback rule configuration. This rule ensures that:

  • Interactive feedback is called before asking clarifying questions

  • Interactive feedback is called before completing requests

  • Proper parameters are provided for effective feedback collection

Available Tools

1 tool
interactive_feedbackB

Request interactive feedback for a given project directory and summary

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
summaryYesShort, one-line summary of the changes
project_directoryYesFull path to the project directory

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain what 'interactive feedback' entails—whether it blocks, returns data, requires user input, or has side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. While concise, it could benefit from additional structure or brevity, but it effectively communicates the core purpose 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?

The tool has a simple parameter set (2 strings) and no output schema, but the description omits critical context: what does 'interactive feedback' mean? Is feedback returned or is it a blocking interaction? The minimalism leaves an agent guessing about the tool's complete behavior.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description merely restates 'project directory and summary', adding no extra meaning. Schema coverage is high, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Request', the resource 'interactive feedback', and the context 'for a given project directory and summary'. It is specific and unambiguous, leaving no doubt about the tool's core function.

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 by stating 'Request interactive feedback' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or any alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed, but the description lacks contextual cues for optimal use.

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

Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or confusion between tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool uses a clear snake_case name, consistent within itself.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool feels too minimal for a meaningful MCP server, lacking sufficient scope.

Completeness2/5

The server provides only one operation for feedback, missing common operations like listing or deleting feedback, leading to significant gaps.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/phidn/cursor-feedback'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server