feat: short name for mcp server in cursor and bump version to 1.0.5

[utkarsh-dixit]

No description provided.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
composio	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Mar 24, 2025 6:13am

[entelligence-ai-pr-reviews]

The change breaks URL parsing by only taking the first segment after the domain instead of the full path. This will cause incorrect configuration keys for nested paths.

📝 Committable Code Suggestion

‼️ Ensure you review the code suggestion before committing it to the branch. Make sure it replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation.

Suggested change

	const newKey = url.split('/').slice(3)[0] + '_composio';
	const newKey = url.split('/').slice(3).join('/') + '_composio';

[shreysingla11]

Consider adding validation for the URL structure before accessing the first segment. The current implementation might throw an error if url.split('/').slice(3) returns an empty array. A safer approach would be:

const segments = url.split('/').slice(3);
if (segments.length === 0) {
    throw new Error('Invalid URL format');
}
const newKey = segments[0] + '_composio';

[shreysingla11]

Consider adding a check for potential key collisions. Since we're now using only the first segment of the URL path, there's a possibility that different URLs with the same first segment could overwrite each other's configurations. Example:

if (cursorConfig.mcpServers[newKey]) {
    console.log(chalk.yellow(`⚠️ Warning: Overwriting existing configuration for ${newKey}`));
}

[shreysingla11]

Code Review Summary

Changes Overview

• Version bump from 1.0.4 to 1.0.5 ✅
• Simplified MCP server key generation for cursor client ✅

Potential Issues

1. URL Validation: The new key generation method lacks validation for URL structure
2. Key Collision Risk: Using only the first segment of the URL path could lead to key collisions

Suggestions

1. Add URL structure validation
2. Add warning for potential key overwrites
3. Consider adding a unique identifier (like timestamp or hash) if key collisions become an issue

Overall Assessment

The changes are generally good and improve the user experience by creating shorter, more manageable server keys. The version bump is appropriate for this feature addition. However, adding the suggested validations would make the code more robust.

Rating: 7/10 - Good changes but needs additional error handling and validation.