Skip to main content
Glama

load_project

Load a saved project by file name into the current Chorono editor as one undoable change so you can resume editing animation work.

Instructions

Load a saved project by file name into the current editor as one undoable change.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "load_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
requestIdNo
sessionIdNo
expectedRevisionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only tell us readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, i.e. a local mutation. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the load is applied 'as one undoable change', so an agent knows the operation is atomically reversible via undo. It still doesn't say whether the existing scene is discarded, or what happens if the named project is missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope qualifier ('current editor') and the behavioral qualifier ('one undoable change') both earn their words.

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?

Given a mutation with four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the definition covers the core action and its undo semantics but leaves concurrency (expectedRevision), session scoping, and failure modes undocumented. Adequate to call it, not adequate to call it safely under revision conflicts.

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% across four parameters. The description clarifies only that 'name' is a file name; requestId, sessionId, and especially expectedRevision (which strongly suggests optimistic concurrency) are left entirely unexplained in both schema and prose. That is a real gap for a mutation tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Load'), a specific resource ('a saved project'), and the identifying key ('by file name'), which distinguishes it from save_project and list_projects. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to route against, but the operation is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'by file name' implies the name must already exist (presumably discoverable via list_projects), and 'into the current editor' implies an in-place replacement. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite/alternative guidance is given.

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