How to Give Cursor Accurate API Tools with an MCP Server
Short answer: Generate an MCP server from your OpenAPI spec, run it locally, and add it to Cursor's MCP configuration. The agent then calls typed tools that trace
Read articleTopic
Short answer: Generate an MCP server from your OpenAPI spec, run it locally, and add it to Cursor's MCP configuration. The agent then calls typed tools that trace
Read articleShort answer: A hand-written MCP entry in Cursor's config is plumbing you maintain; a generated server is derived from the contract. Both expose tools to the agent, but
Read articleShort answer: An agent hallucinates an API call because it is predicting the next token, not reading your server. Without a contract, it fills in the endpoint, parameters, and body
Read articleShort answer: An editor can write a test, but it cannot prove the response conforms to the API. A contract-verified workflow checks each response against the schema and flags the
Read articleShort answer: Give the agent a local mock generated from the spec, not a live backend. It is deterministic, contract-shaped, and returns the edge cases on demand, with no account
Read articleShort answer: Stop paying an agent to re-derive the API from pasted notes. Put the OpenAPI file in the repo, generate the tools and mock from it, and let the
Read articleShort answer: The two tools sit at different layers and compose cleanly. Cursor writes the code and drives the agent; Powerduck defines the contract, generates the typed tools and mock,
Read articleShort answer: If your agent is already writing good code but its API calls are wrong, the missing piece is not a better editor — it is a contract tool. Cursor
Read articleQuick answer: Cursor and Powerduck are not the same kind of tool, and treating them as rivals is the first mistake. Cursor is an AI code editor that consumes tools
Read article