borer

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

load_project

DestructiveIdempotent

Restore session names, comments, and types from a saved JSON project file. Rejects projects saved for another binary unless forced; use borer://carry to rebuild instead.

Instructions

Replace the session's names, comments and types with a saved .json project. Another binary's project (by SHA-256) is refused unless force=true; for a rebuild use borer://carry.

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_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Project JSON path.
`force`	No	Load a project saved for another binary anyway (default false).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive and idempotent annotations, the description adds important context: it replaces session names, comments and types, refuses projects matching another binary by SHA-256, and allows bypass only with force=true. That is substantive behavioral disclosure rather than repetition.

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 two tightly written sentences with no wasted text. The main destructive action is front-loaded, followed by the refusal rule and the rebuild alternative.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, idempotent project-loading tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the key effects, refusal behavior, force override, and rebuild alternative. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by explaining that force is specifically for loading a project saved for another binary, including the SHA-256 refusal condition, which goes beyond the schema's shorter wording.

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 and resource: it replaces the session's names, comments and types with a saved .json project. This clearly distinguishes it from save_project and gives an agent enough to know exactly what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly describes the refusal condition for projects from another binary and the force=true override, and it names an alternative route for rebuilds via borer://carry. This gives clear when/when-not guidance and an alternative.

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