Android Studio MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Find files

ide_find_files

Read-only

Search project files by exact name or glob pattern using the IDE index to locate files like MainActivity.kt or *ViewModel.kt in Android Studio projects.

Instructions

Find project files by name using the IDE index: exact name ('MainActivity.kt') or glob ('*ViewModel.kt').

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`limit`	No
`project`	No	Open project name or base path. Defaults to the project containing `path`, else the active one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that results come from the IDE index (i.e., newly created or unindexed files may not appear), which is useful, but it says nothing about result ordering, truncation, or what the 'limit' cap of 1000 means in practice.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the syntax examples tucked in parentheses. Zero filler.

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?

A read-only three-parameter lookup needs little, and the name-syntax guidance is the core piece. However, with no output schema the description should say what comes back (paths, ranked matches, count) and how the limit interacts with the result set; that is missing.

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 coverage is only 33%; the schema documents 'project' but leaves 'name' and 'limit' bare. The description compensates well for 'name' by specifying exact vs glob syntax with examples, but adds nothing for 'limit' (default 100, max 1000), so the low-coverage gap is only partly closed.

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+resource ('Find project files by name') and the mechanism ('using the IDE index'), with concrete examples of both supported input styles. It implicitly separates itself from ide_find_usages and ide_read_file by being a name-lookup over the index, but never names a sibling to route against.

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?

The exact-name vs glob examples imply how to query, and 'using the IDE index' hints that only indexed project files are searched. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over ide_find_usages or ide_read_file, and no when-not guidance.

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