aris-mcp

Aris Import Aml

aris_import_aml

Idempotent

Read an ARIS AML export into model, object, and connection records, then optionally ingest every model into the graph.

Instructions

Read an AML export into model, object and connection records (the shapes the read tools return); optionally ingest each model.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aris_import_aml"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ingest`	No	Also ingest every model into the graph.
`aml_b64`	No	The same, as base64 bytes.
`aml_text`	No	An ARIS AML export (XML text).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.0.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that model/object/connection records are created and that ingest is optional into the graph, but it does not explain overwrite/upsert behavior, permissions, or other side effects.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical about record shapes adds useful context without making the description bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given three parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the high-level action adequately. However, it omits which input source is required in practice (both aml_text and aml_b64 default to null) and does not clarify mutation or idempotency behavior, leaving a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 each parameter, and the baseline is 3. The description mirrors the optional ingest behavior but adds no guidance on choosing between aml_text and aml_b64 or on the fact that at least one input source is effectively required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: read an AML export into model, object, and connection records, and clarifies the record shapes. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling import/ingest tools such as aris_import_canonical_workflow.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, does not mention alternatives, and the optional ingest sentence does not explain when ingest should be enabled. Only implied usage is present.

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

Deploy Server