headrush-mcp

by Haervwe

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

load_rig

Loads a rig by ID and refuses the switch when the current rig has unsaved edits, preventing lost changes.

Instructions

Load a rig by id. Refused if the current rig has unsaved edits.

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": {
      "rig_id": "<rig_id>"
    },
    "name": "load_rig"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sr_id`	No
`rig_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description's real added value is the precondition that the call is refused when the current rig has unsaved edits. It does not say whether loading replaces in-memory state, whether the change is persisted, or what the failure looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraint; nothing is wasted. It is terse to the point of omitting needed detail, but there is no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the unsaved-edits rule covers the main failure mode. However, a state-changing load tool with an undocumented second parameter and no statement about what happens to the previously loaded rig is only minimally specified.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are two parameters. "By id" weakly maps to rig_id, but sr_id is never mentioned in the description or schema, leaving an agent with no idea what it is or when to supply it.

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

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Load a rig by id" gives a specific verb and resource, and the second sentence implies it swaps the currently loaded rig, which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_current_rig and list_rigs. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The unsaved-edits guard implies a precondition for calling it, but the description never states when to choose load_rig over get_current_rig or list_rigs, nor what to do first (e.g. save_loaded_rig) when the load is refused.

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