Import and verify a resource into an editable or user shelf using a file path and usage, with optional name, group, and confirmation for safe integration.
Import and verify a safe resource in an editable shelf or the user shelf.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| group | No | ||
| usage | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| shelf_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. For an import/mutation tool it says nothing about permissions, whether an existing resource is overwritten, what 'verify' entails, what the 'confirm' flag gates, or what side effects occur on the shelf — all significant gaps.
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?
A single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise — brevity comes at the cost of the operational detail an agent needs.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with six undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a destructive-looking import operation, the description leaves too much unstated for an agent to call it reliably.
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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not: file_path, usage, confirm, name, group, and shelf_name are all undocumented anywhere. In particular, the required 'usage' string and the confirm-gate are entirely opaque to the agent.
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 names a verb+resource ('Import and verify a ... resource') and a target ('an editable shelf or the user shelf'), which conveys the general action. However, 'safe resource' is unexplained jargon and it never distinguishes itself from sibling importers such as import_project_resource and import_session_resource, so an agent cannot tell which shelf-scoped import to pick.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus import_project_resource, import_session_resource, or start_shelf_refresh, all of which appear in the sibling list. The only implicit cue is the phrase 'editable shelf or the user shelf', with no statement of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.