Imports a DSView CSV export as a capture, enabling offline analysis when DSView is driven manually. Export a narrow time range first.
Import a DSView CSV export (Export Data -> CSV) as a capture. This is the reliable offline path when DSView was driven manually. Export a narrow time range first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| label | No | ||
| channels | No |
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 burden. It discloses one useful behavioral trait — large/wide exports are costly, so export a narrow time range first — but says nothing about failure modes for malformed CSVs, whether an existing capture is overwritten, file-size limits, or what is returned.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, front-loading the identification of the input format before the usage hint and the practical caveat. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a file-import tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions on three parameters, the definition leaves too much unsaid: what `channels` does (filter vs. required mapping), what `label` labels, what the tool returns, and how errors surface.
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 three parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them: `path` is only implied, `label` (max 120 chars) and `channels` (a min-1 array, presumably a subset filter) are never explained. The 'narrow time range' note refers to the external DSView export step, not to any tool 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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Import a DSView CSV export ... as a capture', with the source format and provenance (Export Data -> CSV) spelled out. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the live `capture` sibling via 'reliable offline path when DSView was driven manually', though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Gives a clear when-to-use condition: DSView was driven manually, so the data must come in offline. It lacks an explicit when-not clause or a named alternative (e.g., use `capture` when the API controls the device directly), so routing is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.