Load a saved project into memory to warm it up before latency-sensitive operations, preventing automatic-load delays.
Load a persisted CueMap project into RAM before a latency-sensitive operation. Normal project requests load automatically, so use this for explicit warm-up.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project ID to load. Defaults to the repository-scoped project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explaining the effect ('load into RAM'), the trigger ('explicit warm-up'), and the default behavior of normal requests ('load automatically'). It omits edge-case details like behavior when the project is already loaded, but this is not a major gap for a warm-up tool.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Both the 'what' and the 'when' are communicated efficiently without repeating schema content.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly. It could mention what happens if the project does not exist or is already loaded, but those are minor omissions given the warm-up framing.
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?
The schema already documents the single 'project' parameter with 100% coverage, including its default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Load'), a specific resource ('persisted CueMap project'), and a clear purpose ('before a latency-sensitive operation'). It also differentiates the tool from normal automatic loading by framing it as 'explicit warm-up.'
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?
The description gives clear guidance on when to use this tool: before latency-sensitive operations, and explains that normal project requests do not need it because they load automatically. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the warm-up context is sufficient for routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.