shapeless

Import into Brand Memory

brain_import

Import local .md, .txt, .pdf, or .docx files into Brand Memory so agents can store and reuse brand content. Requires write scope.

Instructions

Import a local .md, .txt, .pdf or .docx document into Brand Memory. Needs the write scope.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "brain_import"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file`	Yes	Path to the local document. Only files under the MCP server's working directory or SHAPELESS_UPLOAD_ROOT, with no hidden (dot) path segments, are read.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`sizeBytes`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.4Oct 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the specific authorization requirement ('Needs the write scope'), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose what happens to existing memory entries on import, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, the core action front-loaded, and the prerequisite placed second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is behavior on conflicts or duplicates during import. For a one-parameter import tool the description is nearly complete.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description enumerates the accepted file types (.md, .txt, .pdf, .docx), which the schema does not. That is real added meaning for the single file parameter, lifting it above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Import), the resource (a local .md/.txt/.pdf/.docx document) and the destination (Brand Memory), which is enough for an agent to identify the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling brain_write, but the 'local document' framing is specific and the file types narrow the interpretation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The prerequisite 'Needs the write scope' gives useful usage context, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over brain_write or brain_read, nor any exclusion conditions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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

Deploy Server