ide_run_configurationsLists a project's run/debug configurations and shows which one is selected, helping agents verify or choose the active launch target.
List the project's run/debug configurations and which one is selected.
| 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 behavioral context by noting that the selected configuration is reported, but it does not describe ordering, grouping, or what happens when no project has configurations.
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 definition is a single compact sentence with no wasted words. The core resource and the selected-configuration detail are front-loaded.
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 simple read-only listing tool with one fully documented optional parameter, the description is nearly complete: it says what is listed and that the selected configuration is included. A small gap remains around whether the list is scoped to debug configurations only or includes run configurations too, but otherwise an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the single optional project parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: list run/debug configurations, and adds that the selected configuration is included. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related ide_run tool that would launch one of these configurations.
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 usage is implied: inspect available run/debug configurations, presumably to choose one for ide_run. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direct reference to alternatives such as ide_run.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.