Imports serialized PMM v1 export data into the active memory provider, with best-effort cross-provider support and optional duplicate-skipping or overwrite merge strategies.
Import PMM v1 payload into the active provider (best-effort cross-provider).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Serialized export payload | |
| merge_strategy | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Best-effort cross-provider' usefully discloses that partial or lossy imports are possible, but nothing is said about write/permission requirements, reversibility, idempotency, or how merge_strategy affects existing data — large gaps for a mutation tool.
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 no filler. It is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and one of two parameters undocumented, the description should explain the merge semantics and what the agent gets back or what can be lost. As written, an agent cannot call this safely with confidence.
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 coverage is only 50%: 'data' is documented as a serialized payload and the description adds that it is a PMM v1 format, but merge_strategy has no schema description and the description never explains skip_duplicates vs overwrite. The description therefore fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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 ('Import') and resource ('PMM v1 payload') with a target ('the active provider'), which distinguishes it from siblings like memory_export and memory_add. 'PMM v1' and 'active provider' are unexplained jargon, but the import operation itself is identifiable.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus memory_add or memory_consolidate, nor any prerequisites about provider state. The only contextual hint is 'best-effort cross-provider,' which implies behavior but does not route the agent among alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.