agent4.io

import_storyline

Import an exported storyline JSON as a draft. Artifacts like "generate a storyline from a novel / source material" land here.

payload = the structure returned by export_storyline (schema_version + graph + profile_schema
+ top-level fields). Version-aware: payloads newer than the system supports are rejected.
Always creates new, never claims default, key collisions auto-rename.
override_agent_name rebinds the imported line to an agent that exists in the target tenant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`payload`	Yes
`override_agent_name`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and exceeds it. It discloses version-aware rejection, always-creates-new semantics, key collision auto-rename behavior, and the effect of override_agent_name. These are behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence provides distinct value: purpose, the artifact category, payload definition, and behavioral rules. No fluff or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with complexity (versioning, collisions, overrides), the description covers the key behavioral aspects. It does not explain the output/return (but an output schema exists) nor explicit prerequisites beyond the agent existence, leaving a small gap in completeness.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates: it defines payload as the structure from export_storyline (schema_version, graph, profile_schema, top-level fields) and explains override_agent_name rebinding with the agent existence condition. Both parameters are semantically explained.

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 clearly states it imports an exported storyline JSON as a draft, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that generated storylines from novel/source material land here, and the import/export relationship is evident.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides a clear use case ('Artifacts like... land here') and mentions the payload comes from export_storyline, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it lacks an explicit exclusion.

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

All agent4.io tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct by domain and action. A few pairs like add_knowledge_file vs add_knowledge_text or build_knowledge_index vs patch_knowledge_index could cause confusion, but descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_*, list_*, get_*, update_*). A few outliers like tenant_info, usage_stats, and page_context_stats are noun-first, deviating slightly from the otherwise uniform scheme.

Tool Count1/5

With 50 tools, this is a very large surface that exceeds typical well-scoped server sizes. Even for a broad platform management API, the sheer number makes it heavy and potentially overwhelming, matching the '50+' extreme mismatch category.

Completeness2/5

The server covers creation, reading, updating, and listing for most resources but lacks any delete operations (no delete_agent, delete_knowledge_base, delete_skill, delete_share, delete_storyline, delete_page_context). This is a significant gap in lifecycle coverage that will force agents to work around missing functionality.

Resources

Need Help?