Load a real KSP .craft file into the active VAB/SPH editor to modify or build rockets. Bring existing designs into the editor without visual input.
Load a real KSP .craft file into the active VAB/SPH editor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| path | No | ||
| editor_mode | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't say what happens to the currently loaded craft, whether it requires an active editor, how 'name' vs. 'path' are resolved, whether loading overwrites unsaved changes, or what error behavior to expect. 'Real' .craft file implies filesystem access but nothing more is disclosed.
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 wasted words. Appropriate length for the operation.
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?
A load/mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, 0% param coverage, and all-optional parameters. The description does not provide enough to call it correctly or predict its side effects. This is under-specified for the complexity involved.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the .craft file and the editor target, but does not explain the relationship between 'name' and 'path', nor how 'editor_mode' (VAB/SPH) interacts with 'the active VAB/SPH editor'. With all three params undocumented, the gap is significant.
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 and resource: 'Load a real KSP .craft file into the active VAB/SPH editor.' This clearly distinguishes it from ksp_editor_apply_craft (which applies an in-memory craft) and ksp_editor_new. It's clear, but doesn't explicitly contrast with the closest sibling.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs. ksp_editor_new, ksp_editor_apply_craft, or ksp_game_load_save. With 0 required parameters (name, path, editor_mode all optional), an agent has no instruction on which to supply. No prerequisites or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.