totem-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

memory_import_tool

Restore persistent project knowledge from an exported data file, skipping duplicate IDs to avoid re-adding existing memories.

Instructions

Import memories from a previously exported dict. Skips duplicate IDs.

Args: data: The export dict containing 'items' and optionally 'conflicts' project: Optional project root path. Auto-detected from git root if omitted.

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": {
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "memory_import_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`project`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that duplicate IDs are skipped and that project root is auto-detected from git, but it does not explain side effects, conflict handling, or reversibility of the import.

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 concise and front-loaded: one behavioral sentence followed by a terse Args block. Every sentence adds information, with no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter import tool with an output schema, the description covers the inputs and key duplicate behavior. The main gap is the meaning/role of the optional 'conflicts' key, but passing the export dict as-is is still clear.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and this description compensates by explaining both parameters: data is an export dict with 'items' and optional 'conflicts', and project is optional with git-root auto-detection. It doesn't define the inner shape of 'items' or 'conflicts', but adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action 'Import' and the resource 'memories', and specifies the input is a previously exported dict, which clearly distinguishes it from memory_create_tool and memory_export_tool. The duplicate-ID behavior further clarifies what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies the use case of restoring/importing memories from an export dict and notes project auto-detection behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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