ide_editorsRetrieves open Android Studio files with unsaved changes plus the active file's caret position and selection, so agents can inspect current editor state before editing.
Files open in Android Studio, which have unsaved changes, and the active file with caret position and selection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Open project name or base path. Defaults to the project containing `path`, else the active one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about what editor state is returned, but it does not mention permissions, rate limits, output format, or how project scoping behaves.
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 a single concise fragment with no wasted sentences, and the resource is front-loaded. Its fragment grammar slightly reduces clarity, but it is appropriately sized for the tool.
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 is low complexity with one optional parameter and a read-only annotation, and the description conveys the main return contents. Because there is no output schema, the description should more clearly resolve whether it returns all open files or only files with unsaved changes, and how the active file details relate to the list.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage and fully documents the optional project parameter. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies a specific resource and returned data: open files, unsaved changes, and active file caret/selection. However, it is a noun phrase without an action verb, and it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as ide_read_file, ide_status, or ide_save_all.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. Usage can only be inferred from the described return contents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.