horizon_load_cloud_dataRetrieves a user's cloud save data from horizOn using their userId, so apps can restore progress and sync game state across devices.
Loads cloud save data for a user from horizOn.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | User ID (UUID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short: it does not say whether this requires an authenticated session, whether loaded data overwrites local state, what the return payload contains, or how errors/no-data cases are handled. 'Loads' is the only behavioral signal given.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the transparency gaps noted elsewhere rather than the structure itself being at fault.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source for return values, side effects, and auth requirements – and it supplies none of them. For a data-retrieval tool that likely depends on a prior sign-in, this is materially incomplete.
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 100% and the single userId parameter is fully typed and documented (UUID format with pattern), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only 'for a user', which merely echoes the parameter's existence, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Loads cloud save data') with the scope ('for a user'), so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling horizon_save_cloud_data, but the verb makes the direction of data flow 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 guidance on when to use this versus the save counterpart, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the user must be signed in first), and no statement of what happens on missing or empty cloud data. The agent must infer all usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.