Import an existing protoflow project directory into the workspace. Reads source read-only, registers fingerprint baseline, writes AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md, and errors if project id already exists.
从外部已有的 protoflow 项目目录（project.json + pages/ 布局）导入到工作目录。只读源目录，补登指纹基线、补写 AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md；目标目录已有同 id 项目时报错
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dir | No | 覆盖默认工作目录（项目所在父目录）；相对路径按当前工作目录解析；缺省用 PROTOFLOW_HOME 或启动时的 cwd | |
| sourceDir | Yes | 源项目目录绝对路径 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the source directory is read-only, that it writes a fingerprint baseline and AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md files, and that it errors when the target already contains a project with the same id. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though '补写' could be more explicit about whether existing files are overwritten or appended.
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 dense sentence conveys purpose, source format, safety behavior, side effects, and an error condition without wasted words. All clauses earn their place and the core purpose is front-loaded.
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?
Given moderate complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: input format, read-only source behavior, target side effects, and duplicate-id failure. Minor gaps remain around the exact meaning of 'fingerprint baseline' and the return value, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds contextual meaning about sourceDir being an external existing project and dir being the working directory, but it does not add significant param-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: importing an external existing protoflow project directory (project.json + pages/ layout) into the working directory. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like create_project by emphasizing the source is an existing external project and by mentioning the duplicate-id error condition.
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?
It gives clear context for when to use the tool: importing an already-existing external protoflow project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'do not use for blank projects', but the 'external existing project' framing and duplicate-id error imply that create_project is for new projects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.