Open an existing Altium project file by specifying its full path to access project data for further design tasks.
Open an existing Altium project.
Args: project_path: Full path to the project file
Returns: Dictionary with opened project information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, error conditions, or whether opening a project changes the active document.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args and Returns sections are somewhat boilerplate, but they do not obscure the main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one required parameter and an output schema, which reduces the description's burden. However, it lacks behavioral context for a project-opening operation, such as state changes or failure modes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the single parameter is documented in the description as the full path to the project file. This adds useful meaning beyond the schema's bare string type, though format details are still absent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: open an existing Altium project. It is understandable in isolation, but it does not differentiate from siblings such as proj_create, proj_close, or proj_list_open.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related project tools, nor any prerequisites or conditions such as whether the project must not already be open.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.