GravityPort

asset_import_folder

Import every image and video in a local folder into the GravityPort library with a shared prompt and source metadata. Supports recursive reads, skips symlinks, and reports duplicates.

Instructions

Import every image and video found in a local folder into the GravityPort library, applying the same prompt/sourceType/source to each file. The folder path must be an absolute path on this machine. Symbolic links are skipped; with recursive: true the folder itself is level 1 and its contents are read down to level 5 (at most four subfolder levels below it), and deeper subfolders are skipped; a single call imports at most 1000 files, otherwise it fails and asks for batches. Identical bytes already in the library are reported as deduplicated. Files import one by one; a failed file is reported and does not stop the rest. Files already in the library are listed in duplicates with the existing assetId.

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": {
      "folderPath": "<folderPath>"
    },
    "name": "asset_import_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prompt`	No
`source`	No	Optional generation provenance applied to every imported file, such as generation_tool, model, or codex_session_id.
`recursive`	No	Also read subfolders (default false; the folder itself is level 1, contents are read down to level 5, deeper subfolders are skipped).
`folderPath`	Yes	Absolute path of the folder to import.
`sourceType`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.11Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations: symlinks skipped, recursive depth capped at level 5, hard 1000-file limit that fails the call, byte-identical dedup, per-file failure isolation that does not abort the run, and duplicates reported with existing assetId. This is exactly the operational detail an agent needs before committing to a bulk write.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads what the tool does, then layers constraints in a logical order (path rules, recursion, size cap, dedup, failure handling). It is dense with semicolons but nearly every clause carries operational value; only the repeated recursion-depth explanation overlaps the schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a bulk mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the outcomes an agent must anticipate: deduplicated files, failed files, and duplicates with existing assetId. Nothing essential to a correct invocation appears missing.

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 coverage is 60%; sourceType has no schema description at all, and the description clarifies that prompt/sourceType/source are applied uniformly to every imported file, which is meaningful. It also restates the absolute-path and recursion-depth rules that are partly in the schema, adding some redundancy but confirming intent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Import every image and video found in a local folder into the GravityPort library') and makes the bulk, whole-folder scope explicit, which separates it from single-asset siblings like asset_create.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage conditions are implied through constraints (absolute path required, 1000-file cap with batching, recursion flag semantics), but the description never states when to prefer this over asset_create or asset_version_create for a single file. The bulk-only nature is inferable but not routed explicitly.

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