@gnaws/mcp

Load Cached Resources

load

Load resources from a local dump directory for offline analysis, enabling inspection without AWS credentials or network access.

Instructions

Load resources from a previously dumped directory (offline mode). No AWS credentials needed. After loading, use 'regions', 'detect', or 'export' to work with the data.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "load"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path to a gnaws dump directory containing manifest.json and resource files

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries a heavier burden. It usefully discloses that no AWS credentials are needed. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether loading overwrites previous state), error handling, or what happens if the path is invalid. The description adds some value but falls 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences: purpose, key behavior (no credentials), and follow-up guidance. No redundancy, each sentence adds distinct value. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a single parameter and no output schema, the description addresses the tool's purpose, offline context, and post-load workflow. It lacks detail on return values or error conditions, but for a simple data-loading tool the coverage is mostly sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'path' is fully described in the schema). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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 ('cached resources from a previously dumped directory'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'scan' (live scanning) and 'dump' (creating dumps). It explicitly mentions offline mode, which differentiates it from live operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: 'No AWS credentials needed' and suggests subsequent tools ('regions', 'detect', 'export'). It implies use when a dump directory exists, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or list alternatives for equivalent functionality.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server