Waggle-mcp

pull

Import validated memory files into the knowledge graph, with integrity and schema checks, returning node/edge update counts.

Instructions

Load a memory file into the current graph (waggle pull). Accepts a .abhi file (default) or a raw JSON backup. Runs integrity verification, schema validation, and constraint checks before merging. Returns counts for created and updated nodes and edges.

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": {
      "input_path": "<input_path>"
    },
    "name": "pull"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input_path`	Yes	Path to the .abhi or JSON backup file to import.
`pull_format`	No	'abhi' (default) imports a .abhi memory file; 'backup' imports a raw JSON backup.	abhi

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.17Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses behavioral traits such as integrity verification, schema validation, constraint checks, and return counts. However, given no annotations, it misses details about whether merging overwrites existing data or conflicts are handled, which are relevant for a destructive operation.

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 consists of three compact sentences with the main action front-loaded. No extraneous information; every sentence adds useful detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers format acceptance, validation steps, and return counts, which is adequate for a simple import tool. However, it does not specify whether existing data is overwritten or merged, nor does it describe error handling or performance implications, leaving some gaps.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the default pull_format ('abhi') and the meaning of each enum option. This goes beyond the schema's basic enum listing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Load') and resource ('memory file into the current graph'), and specifies accepted formats (.abhi or JSON backup). It distinguishes from sibling import tools like 'import_markdown_vault' by focusing on .abhi and backup formats, but lacks explicit differentiation from 'load_abhi_chunks'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'import_markdown_vault' or 'load_abhi_chunks'. The description implies file format usage but does not provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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