load_deckEnter a container, specialist scope or Console. Use switch_deck for an in-container scope change; reground restores faded instructions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Load handle e.g. research, writing, console | |
| contract | No | Help mode — return the complete contract with no operation performed. | |
| container_id | No | Container ID — required when user has multiple containers |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / contract / descriptionPrevious value: -"Help mode — pass true to receive this tool's full _meta.contract (all variants) with NO operation performed."New value: +"Help mode — return the complete contract with no operation performed."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose side effects, permissions, or behavioral outcomes. It is not clear whether load_deck modifies state, changes context, or has any impact beyond loading. Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds no 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 short (two sentences) but the structure is muddled, mixing the unclear main action with alternative tool references. It is not concise in meaning, though length is acceptable.
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 description lacks essential context: what a 'deck' is, what 'loading' entails, what 'container' or 'specialist scope' refer to, and how this tool fits into the overall workflow. Given the tool's apparent significance, the description is far from complete.
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 100% (handle, contract, container_id all described in the schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning 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 'Enter a container, specialist scope or Console' does not clearly state what the tool does. The verb 'enter' is ambiguous, and the concepts of 'specialist scope' and 'Console' are undefined, leaving the purpose highly unclear.
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 description mentions alternatives (switch_deck, reground) and what they are used for, but does not specify when to use load_deck itself. This provides partial disambiguation but lacks explicit usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.