Android Studio MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Search IDE actions

ide_actions

Read-only

Search Android Studio action IDs by id or menu text to locate the right IDE command for sync, reformat, rebuild, and similar tasks.

Instructions

Search Android Studio's action ids by id or menu text (e.g. 'sync', 'reformat', 'rebuild').

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ide_actions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no statement about what is returned (ids only vs. ids plus menu text), what an empty query does, or how the limit truncates results. With no output schema, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical examples earn their place by showing what a menu-text query looks like. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose.

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?

For a two-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, an agent still needs to know the shape of the results (do I get bare action ids?), what a blank query returns, and how limit affects output. The description covers the query semantics but leaves these open.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain that 'query' matches either an action id or menu text and gives concrete examples, which is genuinely useful. However, the 'limit' parameter (default 50, max 500) is never mentioned, leaving half the surface undocumented everywhere.

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 and resource: 'Search Android Studio's action ids', and clarifies that matching is by id or menu text. This is enough to distinguish it from the execution-oriented sibling ide_action, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the mention of action ids suggests the result feeds ide_action, but the description never says 'use this to look up an id before calling ide_action' or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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