open_in_editorOpens a GlideDeck project file in the editor on your computer so you can edit slides and present the deck.
Opens the project in the GlideDeck editor on the user's computer so they can edit and present it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | The GlideDeck project file (.glide.json). Absolute, or relative to the server's folder; `.glide.json` is added when there is no extension. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the editor opens on the user's computer, indicating a local GUI launch rather than a server-side mutation. It does not cover whether the call blocks, what it returns, or failure behavior, so it stops short of full transparency.
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 focused sentence with no redundant or filler content, and the core action is 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 one-parameter tool with a fully described schema and relevant annotations, the description is largely complete. It could say more about what happens after the editor opens, but no critical calling information is missing.
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%, and the path parameter is fully documented in the schema, including relative-path and extension behavior. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ('Opens'), resource ('the project'), and destination ('in the GlideDeck editor on the user's computer'). The local-editor context distinguishes it from server-side siblings such as edit_presentation.
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 phrase 'so they can edit and present it' implies the use case, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_presentation, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.