Retrieve paginated load records by grid ID, including bus, active/reactive power, and detected type, to inspect or process grid loads.
Page through the load table (index, name, bus, p_mw, q_mvar, detected type).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| grid_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is paginated and lists the returned columns, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, the meaning of the detected 'type' field, or what happens at page boundaries.
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 tight sentence with the verb and returned fields front-loaded; no filler. It is perhaps too terse to be fully useful, but nothing in it is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, naming the returned columns is the right move and partially compensates. However, the grid_id parameter, paging semantics, and the fact that 'detected type' is inferred rather than declared are left unexplained.
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 0% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It lists output columns rather than explaining limit, offset, or grid_id, leaving the paging defaults (limit capped at 40) and the grid identifier semantics undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Page through the load table') and enumerates the returned columns, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like load_grid, but the resource is distinctive enough to be unambiguous.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as load_grid or get_grid_curve, and no prerequisites. The only usage hint is the word 'Page', which implicitly signals limit/offset paging but is never spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.