Loads a local TTCraft ZIP archive into a shared table and replaces current objects; export a backup first, then reconnect after import. Requires Admin.
Load a local TTCraft ZIP archive into the shared table, REPLACING current objects. Requires Admin. Export a backup first. Reconnects after success. Never automatically retries the import.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table_id | No | Omit to use the active connected table. | |
| file_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=false, but the description adds material context beyond them: the admin requirement, that it reconnects the session after success (a side effect on connection state), and that it never auto-retries. It does not say what state the table is left in if the import fails partway, which matters for a destructive non-idempotent operation.
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?
Five short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its destructive scope, then permissions, prerequisite, and failure semantics. No sentence is filler; each one carries a distinct operational fact.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description covers the safety-critical facts (replacement, admin, backup, reconnect, no retry). Remaining gap is failure/partial-import behavior and what a successful return looks like, which for a destructive import tool would be worth one more sentence.
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?
With only 50% schema description coverage, file_path is undocumented anywhere; the description implies a 'local' path but adds no format, path-style, or ZIP-content constraints. table_id is fully explained in the schema ('Omit to use the active connected table'), so the schema carries most of the weight here.
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 and resource: load a local TTCraft ZIP archive into the shared table, with the destructive scope declared up front ('REPLACING current objects'). This is clearly distinct from archives_save and modules_import, so an agent can tell what it does without consulting the schema.
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?
'Requires Admin' and 'Export a backup first' give concrete preconditions and a required ordering step before invocation. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool (archives_save) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.