OpenPapers

Import ResearchPack

import_research_pack

Import a ResearchPack JSON as static metadata to enable reproducible research workflows. No code is executed, ensuring safe ingestion of untrusted research data.

Instructions

Import a bounded JSON ResearchPack as untrusted static metadata; no code is executed.

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": {
      "pack_json": "<pack_json>"
    },
    "name": "import_research_pack"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pack_json`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does provide a useful safety-relevant trait by stating the data is treated as untrusted static metadata and that no code is executed. However, it omits what happens after import, whether the tool mutates or replaces state, and what response or error behavior to expect.

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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence. It front-loads the core action and includes an important security-relevant qualifier without any filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one parameter and no output schema, so a short description is acceptable. Still, without annotations or return-value details, the agent is left uncertain about the tool's state-changing behavior and post-import effects.

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

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds that pack_json is a bounded JSON ResearchPack. It does not explain the expected JSON structure, required fields, or any formatting constraints beyond the schema's maxLength/minLength, leaving the agent under-informed about valid input.

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 clearly identifies the action (Import) and resource (ResearchPack), and specifies the input as a bounded JSON. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the wording distinguishes it from export_research_pack and the various search/read tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives, such as export_research_pack or collection tools. No scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer appropriate use from the name alone.

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