Load a named client pool to scope subsequent searches to that pool. Use it before querying when you need results limited to a specific client context.
Load a specific pool for subsequent searches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool_name | Yes | Name of the client to load |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that loading affects future searches, but does not disclose whether the selected pool is session-scoped or global, whether it replaces a prior pool, what happens if the pool does not exist, or what permissions are required.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It states the action and its downstream purpose immediately.
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?
The tool is low-complexity in parameter count, but it appears to change search context and has no annotations or output schema to explain that behavior. The description is therefore missing important state-management details an agent would need before invoking it.
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 required parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond "specific pool," and the schema's "Name of the client to load" wording is not clarified.
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 uses a specific verb ("Load") and resource ("pool") and adds the effect "for subsequent searches," so the agent can understand it selects a search context. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as trawl_get_pool or trawl_search_pool, which keeps it below a 5.
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 phrase "for subsequent searches" implies when the tool is useful, but it does not state when-not to use it or name alternatives like trawl_get_pool, trawl_list_pools, or trawl_search_pool. Usage is inferable rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.