cursor-cloud-agents-mcp

cursor_status

Check a Cursor Cloud Agent run's status and retrieve its final reply when complete. Omit run_id to check the latest run.

Instructions

Check a run's status. Run status is the source of truth — the agent's lifecycle status (ACTIVE/IDLE) is NOT "is it still working".

If run_id is omitted, the agent's latest run is used. Poll this every 10-30 seconds; never sleep inside a tool call. When terminal=true, result holds the agent's final reply.

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>"
    },
    "name": "cursor_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`run_id`	No
`agent_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses polling cadence, the default-run fallback, and the meaning of terminal=true plus what result holds when terminal. It doesn't cover auth requirements or what non-terminal status values look like.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the key semantic caveat, then operational guidance, then the terminal/result contract. No filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description still supplies the polling contract and the terminal/result contract, which is the core of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing the status payload itself or possible status values.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains run_id's default/omit behavior but says nothing about agent_id beyond its presence as required, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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+resource ('Check a run's status') and sharpens it by disambiguating run status from the agent's ACTIVE/IDLE lifecycle status. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling like cursor_result or cursor_list, so the differentiation is conceptual rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit operational guidance: poll every 10-30 seconds, never sleep inside a tool call, and omit run_id to fall back to the agent's latest run. It tells the agent both how to use the tool and the anti-pattern to avoid.

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

Deploy Server