Add import statements to files without creating duplicates. Automatically inserts after the last existing import.
Add an import statement to a file. Automatically checks for duplicates and inserts after the last existing import.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Relative file path | |
| import_statement | Yes | Full import statement to add (e.g. "import { useState } from 'react'") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses that the tool checks for duplicates and inserts after the last existing import, which are important non-obvious behaviors beyond the basic 'add' operation. It does not mention failure modes or return values, but the main behavioral traits are covered.
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 that states the core action and then immediately provides two key behavioral details. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration; every clause contributes useful information.
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 simple two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential operation and expected insertion behavior. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not address edge cases like files with no existing imports or missing files, but the overall guidance is sufficient for the tool's low complexity.
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%, and both parameters already have clear schema descriptions, including an example for import_statement. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific action verb ('Add') and names the exact resource ('an import statement to a file'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like patch_file and from read-only tools like read_file. The primary purpose is immediately understandable.
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 implies when to use this tool: when an import needs to be added. The duplicate-checking and insertion-position details hint at why it might be preferred over manual patching, but there is no explicit comparison with alternatives like patch_file or insert_after_symbol, and no stated when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.