Import a UTF-8 text or markdown file from an allowed server directory into a knowledge space for centralized use.
Import a server-side UTF-8 text/markdown file from an allowed ingest directory into a knowledge space.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | source | |
| space | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| status | No | source | |
| tags_json | No | [] | |
| source_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful constraints: the file must be UTF-8 text/markdown assures server-side and from an allowed ingest directoryasi. It does not disclose duplicate handling, permissions, side effects beyond import, or whether existing knowledge is updated.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and preserves the most important constraints, making it easy to parse.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has six parameters, no annotation guidance, and no parameter descriptions. The description leaves critical execution context unresolved, such as which directories are allowed, how kind/status/tags_json affect ingestion, and whether the file is moved, copied, or left in place.
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 the description does not compensate for the six parameters. It slightly clarifies source_path by constraining it to a UTF-8 text/markdown file in an allowed ingest directory, but kind, space, title, status, and tags_json remain unexplained beyond their names and defaults.
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?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('a server-side UTF-8 text/markdown file from an allowed ingest directory') and indicates the destination ('into a knowledge space'). It does not explicitly reference sibling tools, but the 'server-side' and 'allowed ingest directory' constraints help distinguish it from other knowledge/file tools.
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?
The phrase 'from an allowed ingest directory' implies when this tool is appropriate: there is a server-side file available in a permitted location. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer routing among related knowledge and file tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.