ide_openOpens a file at a specified line and column in the running Android Studio and brings its window to the front, so coding agents can jump directly to code locations.
Open a file at a line/column in the running Android Studio and bring its window to the front.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| line | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| column | No | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose two things beyond the name: the tool acts on an already-running IDE, and it steals focus by bringing the window to the front — a real side effect worth knowing. It does not say what happens if the file or project cannot be resolved, whether a new tab is opened or an existing one reused, or whether the IDE must have that project loaded.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the location target first and the focus effect second. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.
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?
For a small side-effecting action on a running IDE with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and its user-visible effect. Missing only failure/edge-case behavior (file not found, project not loaded) and tab-reuse semantics, which are minor for this tool class.
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 25% — only `project` is documented in the schema. The description, by saying 'at a line/column', gives the bare `line` and `column` integers a meaning they lack in the schema: optional navigation targets. It adds nothing about indexing base, defaults, or path format (absolute vs project-relative), so two of four parameters remain under-specified.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource (open a file at a line/column) and a specific target environment (the running Android Studio), plus the focus side effect of raising the window. It implicitly distinguishes itself from ide_read_file by being a UI/editor action rather than a read, but it never names that sibling or studio_open, so the boundary is left for the agent to infer.
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?
The scenario (navigate the human-visible editor to a location) is implied by 'bring its window to the front', but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as ide_read_file for programmatic reading. An agent must infer the choice from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.