KSJ MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

import_backup

Restore a ksj-export-v1 JSONL backup into the knowledge base. Existing captures with matching volume and template IDs are skipped, so nothing is overwritten.

Instructions

Restore a ksj-export-v1 JSONL backup into the knowledge base.

Additive and non-destructive: captures that collide with an existing
(volume, template ID) are skipped, nothing is overwritten. User-asserted
edges are restored; derived connections are rebuilt over the merged base.

Args:
    file_path: Path to a file produced by export_backup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.9.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses collision handling (skip on (volume, template ID) match), the no-overwrite guarantee, and that user-asserted edges are restored while derived connections are rebuilt. It omits auth/permission requirements, size limits, and error/partial-failure behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the critical non-destructive guarantee before the finer edge-handling detail. The Args block is minimal and the only parameter is one line.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the semantic behavior an import tool needs. Remaining gaps (auth prerequisites, failure/rollback semantics for a partially-applied import) are minor but real for a mutation-class tool with no annotations.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: file_path is documented as a path to a file produced by export_backup, with the expected ksj-export-v1 JSONL format implied, which adds real constraint beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Restore) plus the exact resource and format (ksj-export-v1 JSONL backup into the knowledge base), and explicitly ties the input to a named sibling (export_backup). An agent can distinguish this from export_backup/export_html without opening any schema.

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?

The description makes the trigger scenario clear (restoring a backup file produced by export_backup) and states the additive, non-destructive contract. It does not spell out when NOT to use it or any alternative import path, so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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