Import an official Charles Proxy session (XML or native) into the reverse-analysis store to enable live traffic inspection and historical analysis.
Import an official Charles XML/native session into the canonical reverse-analysis store.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| source_kind | No | history_import | |
| source_format | No | xml |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Import', implying mutation, but does not describe what happens to existing data, whether the operation is idempotent, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it lacks any structured breakdown or clarification of key aspects.
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?
For a tool that imports data and has three parameters (one required) plus an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output, the meaning of parameters, or any behavioral context. Given no annotations, completeness is inadequate.
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 explain the parameters. It only hints at the format (XML vs native) but does not explain the 'path' parameter or the meaning of 'source_kind'. The defaults are left unexplained, and the agent cannot infer parameter usage from the given text.
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 uses a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('official Charles XML/native session') and names the target store ('canonical reverse-analysis store'). It clearly states what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools or name alternatives.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or conditions under which this tool is preferred over other reverse-* or import-like tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.