How do I use Wolbarg Coordination for Cursor?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Wolbarg Coordination for Cursor run a workspace briefing" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

Wolbarg Coordination for Cursor

by wolbarg

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Wolbarg Coordination for Cursor

Cursor plugin that turns Wolbarg’s coordination-plane design into something agents can use natively: MCP tools + skill + rules + hooks.

Status: @wolbarg/cursor@0.2.0 — production-ready for Cursor workspaces that complete wolbarg init and (for hard guarantees) enable fail_closed_protected_paths. Verify with MCP tool production_readiness (ready: true).

Hard requirement: `wolbarg init`

npx wolbarg init

That writes .wolbarg/config.json. Without it:

MCP starts in setup mode (tools return WOLBARG_NOT_INITIALIZED instead of crashing)
Hooks deny / warn until init exists
CoordinationPlane throws under default options

After init, reload MCP / reopen the agent chat.

This is not another coding agent and not an orchestrator. Cursor remains the runtime.

See the RFC: cursor coordination plane.

Related MCP server: scope-guard-mcp

Production checklist

Gate	How to verify
Init	`.wolbarg/config.json` exists
Mechanics	`coordination_scorecard` → ≥ 9.5
Fail-closed	Copy `examples/coordination.production.json` → `.wolbarg/coordination.json`
Compliance audit	Hooks/MCP `check_path_write` write `compliance_events`; see `compliance_report`
Actor identity	Set `WOLBARG_ACTOR_ID` or `.wolbarg/actor.id` so hooks ignore your own leases
Hard gate	MCP `production_readiness` → `ready: true`

Recommended production policy

{
  "enforcement": "fail_closed_protected_paths",
  "protectedGlobs": ["src/auth/**", "src/payments/**", "src/billing/**"],
  "defaultClaimTtlSeconds": 1800,
  "allowClaimBreakBy": "human",
  "pulseTtlSeconds": 900
}

Default remains advisory for gentle onboarding; production deployments should switch to fail-closed on protected globs.

What you get

Piece	Role
MCP server	Agent API (`workspace_briefing`, `claim_scope`, …)
Skill	When/how agents should coordinate
Rule	Always-on short contract
Hooks	Session briefing + claim checks on writes (deny when fail-closed)
SQLite store	`.wolbarg/coordination.db` + compliance audit log
Scorecard / prod gate	CI-friendly `coordination_scorecard` + `production_readiness`

Install

git clone https://github.com/wolbarg/cursor.git
cd cursor
npm install
npm run build
npm test

In the target workspace:

npx wolbarg init

Option A — project MCP (prefer absolute paths on Windows)

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "wolbarg-cursor-mcp": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@wolbarg/cursor"],
      "env": {
        "WOLBARG_WORKSPACE_ROOT": "C:/absolute/path/to/workspace"
      }
    }
  }
}

Option B — Cursor plugin (local symlink)

# macOS / Linux
mkdir -p ~/.cursor/plugins/local
ln -s "$(pwd)" ~/.cursor/plugins/local/wolbarg-cursor-mcp

Option C — npm bin

npx -y @wolbarg/cursor

Agent workflow

workspace_briefing — use short queries; pass wait_ms when siblings may still be writing
claim_scope — lease paths before contested edits
record_finding — facts / decisions / dead_ends (+ tags)
pulse_update / heartbeat_claim
release_claim + create_handoff
compliance_report / production_readiness — ops

MCP tools

workspace_briefing (supports wait_ms, min_*)
claim_scope / heartbeat_claim / release_claim
record_finding / search_findings
upsert_work_item / list_work_items
create_handoff / pulse_update
coordination_status / coordination_scorecard
compliance_report / production_readiness
check_path_write

Library API

import { CoordinationPlane } from "@wolbarg/cursor";

const plane = new CoordinationPlane({ rootPath: process.cwd() });
const gate = plane.productionReadiness();
if (!gate.ready) throw new Error(gate.blockers.join("\n"));
plane.close();

Design notes

Init is mandatory for full plane operation.
Git remains code SoR — the DB is coordination + compliance truth only.
Claims use TTL + heartbeat — crashed agents expire.
Findings use local FTS (+ synonym expansion); core Wolbarg semantic memory uses project embedding config separately.
Conflicts are flat JSON for MCP clients.
Requires Node.js ≥ 22.5 (node:sqlite, WAL + busy_timeout).

Development

npm run build
npm test
npm run mcp

Available Tools

4 tools

claim_scopeD

Unavailable until wolbarg init. Returns WOLBARG_NOT_INITIALIZED.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No
`scopes`	Yes
`purpose`	Yes
`actor_id`	Yes
`actor_label`	No
`ttl_seconds`	No

TDQS

D1.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description only mentions a precondition and error. Behavioral traits like whether the tool is destructive, requires auth, or has side effects are not disclosed.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short but does not earn its place—it omits essential information. Front-loading a constraint is positive, but the brevity is under-specification, not useful conciseness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It provides no actionable insight for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the six parameters (e.g., actor_id, scopes, mode). Their meanings and usage are completely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description does not state the tool's actual function; it only says it is 'Unavailable until wolbarg init' and returns an error. No verb or resource is mentioned, leaving the purpose entirely unclear.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools (wolbarg_init_required, workspace_briefing, coordination_status) are not differentiated.

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

coordination_statusB

Reports that Wolbarg is not initialized for this workspace root.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output (reports not initialized) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, has side effects, or how it handles errors. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise with one short sentence. It wastes no words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., front-loading key info) and could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. Still, it earns a high score for brevity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of information. It covers the basic purpose but omits details such as the return format, when it is called, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a simple status tool, this is minimally adequate but not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, so the description need not add parameter meaning. Schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is no need for additional parameter semantics.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: reporting that Wolbarg is not initialized for the workspace root. It uses a specific verb (reports) and resource (initialization status), making its purpose clear. However, it may be too narrow by implying it always reports 'not initialized' rather than the general status.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 alternatives like 'wolbarg_init_required' or 'workspace_briefing'. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate invocation.

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

wolbarg_init_requiredA

Wolbarg is not initialized. Call this tool for setup instructions, then run npx wolbarg init and reload MCP.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that the tool returns instructions for initialization, which is appropriate for a non-destructive info tool. However, without annotations, it could provide more detail about what the setup instructions entail or any side effects.

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?

The description is a single, very concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without any unnecessary words. It is efficiently structured for quick parsing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of parameters/output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose and action required. However, it could benefit from briefly mentioning what the output looks like (e.g., 'returns text instructions').

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it does not provide extra context about the input schema (which is empty). A score of 4 reflects that it adequately handles the lack of parameters.

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 tool's purpose: to provide setup instructions for Wolbarg initialization. It uses a specific verb ('call this tool for setup instructions') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools which deal with other functionalities like briefing or claiming scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly instructs the user to call the tool for setup instructions, then run a specific command (npx wolbarg init) and reload MCP. This provides clear sequential usage, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives.

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

workspace_briefingD

Unavailable until wolbarg init. Returns WOLBARG_NOT_INITIALIZED.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No

TDQS

D1.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist. The description only discloses the error condition; it fails to explain normal behavior, parameters, or side effects.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary information for brevity. It earns its place but is incomplete.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given low complexity and no output schema, the description is drastically incomplete; it does not convey the tool's purpose, usage, or behavior beyond unavailability.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter 'query' with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description only states unavailability and an error return, not what the tool does when available. The name suggests a briefing function, but the description is misleading and vague.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It implies a precondition (wolbarg init) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'wolbarg_init_required' or alternatives.

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

D1.6/5.0

Disambiguation1/5

All four tools effectively serve the same purpose: reporting that Wolbarg is not initialized. They overlap completely, making it impossible for an agent to distinguish meaningful differences.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: mixed lowercase with underscores (wolbarg_init_required, coordination_status), compound words (workspace_briefing), and verb-object (claim_scope). No uniform style or structure.

Tool Count1/5

Four tools are excessive for a single, trivial function (indicating uninitialized state). One or two tools would suffice; this count wastes surface area and confuses agents.

Completeness1/5

The tool surface covers only the uninitialized state and provides no actual coordination functionality. If Wolbarg is supposed to enable coordination, there are no tools for any meaningful operations, making it severely incomplete.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

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

Related MCP Connectors

PlanWright
tools.planwright
Control plane for autonomous software labor. Agents claim objectives over MCP with audit trail.
Project Management Autonomous Agents
27
mcp
com.skopik
Your org's AI agents, tasks, runs, search, and brain files as MCP tools and resources.
Agent Orchestration Knowledge & Memory Search
2
AgentDM: Agent to Agent Communication Platform
ai.agentdm
Agent communication platform for agent to agent messaging via MCP. Messages, channels, skills.
Autonomous Agents Communication Agent Orchestration
2
Mnemolog MCP
dev.pages.mnemolog
Hosted MCP memory and agent control plane for durable conversations, jobs, and operations.
Knowledge & Memory Agent Orchestration Autonomous Agents
2

Related MCP Servers

@willpowell8/cursor-cloud
Coding Agents Developer Tools Version Control
willpowell8
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Enables programmatic control of Cursor's cloud-based AI agents for automated code generation and repository management via standardized MCP tools.
Updated 8 months ago (2026-01-05 20:14 UTC)
25
6
MIT
scope-guard-mcp
Agent Orchestration Autonomous Agents
mdfifty50-boop
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server that enforces multi-agent scope boundaries. Prevents scope drift, work duplication, and infinite delegation loops in agentic systems.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-04-24 13:40 UTC)
63
MIT
LightsOut
Agent Orchestration Coding Agents
filipeagg
F
license
Not graded
quality
A
maintenance
Agent orchestration system that runs coding-agent sessions (Claude Code, Codex) with policy mediation and exposes tools via MCP.
Updated 15 days ago (2026-08-19 11:46 UTC)
local-knowledge-suite
Knowledge & Memory RAG Systems
luutru433-coder
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Provides MCP tools for workspace initialization, health checks, context recall, and durable memory capture, enabling project-specific memory and shared company knowledge with citations.
Updated 11 days ago (2026-08-23 21:18 UTC)
MIT

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/wolbarg/cursor'

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

Wolbarg Coordination for Cursor

Hard requirement: wolbarg init

Production checklist

Recommended production policy

What you get

Install

Option A — project MCP (prefer absolute paths on Windows)

Option B — Cursor plugin (local symlink)

Option C — npm bin

Agent workflow

MCP tools

Library API

Design notes

Development

Available Tools

Maintenance

Resources

Looking for Admin?

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

Hard requirement: `wolbarg init`