Loads a project JSON file from disk and replaces the current CAD scene, clearing undo/redo history. Use it to restore saved drawings or switch projects.
Load a project JSON file from disk and replace the current scene (undo/redo cleared).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
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, and it does disclose the critical destructive trait: it replaces the current scene and clears undo/redo. That is genuinely valuable data-loss context, but it omits other behavior such as auth/permission needs and what happens if the file is missing or malformed.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and appends the destructive side effect. No filler or redundancy.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the key side effect, which is reasonably complete. It still leaves the relationship to open_project and error-handling behavior unspecified.
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 0% and the single 'path' parameter has no description. The phrase 'from disk' and 'JSON file' hints that path is a filesystem location to a JSON file, adding marginal meaning, but no format, extension, or relative/absolute conventions are 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?
The description states a specific verb (Load) and resource (project JSON file from disk), which is enough to distinguish it from creation tools. However, it does not clarify how it differs from the sibling open_project, which sounds semantically near-identical.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given and no alternatives are referenced. The presence of both open_project and new_project among siblings makes the choice non-obvious, and the description leaves that ambiguity unresolved.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.