opentakeoff-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

import_takeoff

Load a saved takeoff canvas file into the current session, merging conditions by finish-tag identity while this session's calibration wins, so you can resume or audit prior work.

Instructions

The way BACK IN (#151): load an "opentakeoff.takeoff_canvas.v1" file — a prior export_takeoff, or the app's own save — into this session, through the SAME tested merge rules as the app's Sheet-menu import: finish-tag identity joins imported conditions onto this session's own (their knobs win), new ids append, duplicate ids skip (re-import is idempotent), and THIS session's calibration wins per sheet. An uncalibrated empty session adopts the file wholesale. New dimensional shapes refuse atomically if their source scale differs from the session calibration or is missing; align scales and re-export, or use a fresh session. Counts and duplicate IDs are exempt. Legacy agent traces without review flags arrive reviewed:false. Resume yesterday's work, extend a takeoff a human already reviewed (their ink stays ink — reviewed shapes arrive untouchable by agent verbs), or audit someone else's export with list_shapes/takeoff_summary. Requires a loaded plan; shapes referencing OTHER files ride along and count in totals but can't be viewed against this document — the reply's unknown_files names them. Approval marks ride the file too — transport, not minting: an estimator seal arriving by import stays estimator ink, listable but untouchable here. undo_last removes the imported SHAPES as one step; adopted conditions, scales, annotations, and approval marks stay.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path to a takeoff_canvas.v1 JSON file on disk

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	Yes	Basename of the imported file
`note`	Yes
`replaced`	Yes	true = the session was empty and adopted the file wholesale
`shapes_added`	Yes
`shapes_total`	Yes
`unknown_files`	Yes	Files referenced by imported shapes that this document doesn't have — they count in totals but can't be viewed here
`rules_imported`	Yes	Correction rules (#88) that arrived with the file — apply_rules re-runs them
`scales_adopted`	Yes	Sheets whose calibration came from the file (this session's own always wins)
`shapes_pending`	Yes	Of the added shapes, how many are unreviewed machine pencil
`conditions_added`	Yes
`conditions_merged`	Yes	Imported conditions that joined an existing finish tag (its knobs won)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.15Aug 6, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / rules_imported

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Correction rules (#88) that arrived with the file — apply_rules re-runs them",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "file",
-  "replaced",
-  "shapes_added",
-  "shapes_pending",
-  "conditions_merged",
-  "conditions_added",
-  "scales_adopted",
-  "unknown_files",
-  "shapes_total",
-  "note"
-]New value: +[
+  "file",
+  "replaced",
+  "shapes_added",
+  "shapes_pending",
+  "conditions_merged",
+  "conditions_added",
+  "scales_adopted",
+  "unknown_files",
+  "rules_imported",
+  "shapes_total",
+  "note"
+]

Addedv0.1.9Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does: merge identity rules, idempotency of re-import, this-session-calibration precedence, atomic refusal on scale mismatch, reviewed:false default for legacy traces, untouchability of imported reviewed shapes, unknown_files behavior, and undo_last semantics. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral disclosure beyond any structured field.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with confusing flavor text referencing a ticket '#151' and 'The way BACK IN', then one extremely dense run-on sentence packing many distinct behaviors. It is substantially overlong for a one-parameter tool and hard to parse, though the content is nearly all relevant, so not a 1.

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?

Complete enough: since an output schema exists, it needn't explain return values, and it still correctly mentions the reply's unknown_files field. Covers prerequisites, merge semantics, refusal behavior, and downstream effects (undo_last, approval marks). Minor gap: it doesn't plainly restate what the required 'path' refers to at the top.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying the file format/version ('opentakeoff.takeoff_canvas.v1') and that a prior export_takeoff or app save is acceptable, which clarifies what path should point to beyond the schema's generic 'JSON file'.

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 (load/import) and resource (an opentakeoff.takeoff_canvas.v1 file), and explicitly distinguishes itself from export_takeoff (its counterpart) and from list_shapes/takeoff_summary which are named as audit alternatives. The merge-rule detail makes the tool's exact role unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use scenarios (resume yesterday's work, extend a human-reviewed takeoff, audit someone else's export) and names the alternative tools for the audit case (list_shapes/takeoff_summary). It also states a prerequisite ('Requires a loaded plan') and remediation paths (align scales and re-export, or use a fresh session) for refusal.

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