Atomically import rules or playbooks and return counts of created, updated, and unchanged items, so teams can track which backlog policies changed in a single operation.
Atomically import a rules/playbooks object; return created/updated/unchanged counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | Yes | ||
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add two real facts: the operation is atomic (all-or-nothing) and it returns created/updated/unchanged counts. It says nothing about permissions, conflict/idempotency behavior, whether anything can be deleted, or size limits, which are material for a bulk mutation.
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 front-loaded sentence with two useful clauses and no filler. It is efficient, though the compressed 'rules/playbooks object' phrasing is slightly ambiguous about whether items is one object or a collection.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description's mention of return counts is valuable, but a two-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage needs far more: payload shape, actor's role, conflict handling, and routing versus the add/import siblings.
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% and both parameters are undocumented; 'items' is a free-form object with additionalProperties and 'actor' has no explanation at all. The phrase 'rules/playbooks object' hints at the expected payload, but the actor parameter and the item structure are left entirely unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb ('Atomically import') and resource ('a rules/playbooks object'), which clearly separates it from single-item siblings like rule_add or playbook_add. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (rule_add, playbook_add, task_import). The agent must infer that this is the bulk/batch path from the word 'import' alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.