vcf-ops-mpb-mcp

Import design from JSON

mpb_import_design

Import an MPB design envelope from a file or inline JSON, apply import fixes, and assign a new design ID; re-enter test-source credentials before running source tests.

Instructions

Imports a design envelope (MPB export format) from a file or inline JSON, first fixing known import quirks (unwrapped list items, flat-format fields). The server assigns a new design id. Credentials must be re-entered (mpb_test_source credentials) before a source test passes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "mpb_import_design"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`version`	No	Override design.version before import
`envelope`	No	Inline envelope instead of filePath
`filePath`	No	Envelope file; relative paths resolve under MPB_DESIGNS_DIR
`sanitize`	No	Apply import fixes (default true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the server assigns a new design id, import quirks are auto-fixed, and credentials are not carried over. It does not say whether an existing design is overwritten or what happens on partial failure, but the added disclosure is substantial.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two non-obvious caveats (id assignment, credential re-entry). No filler, though the parenthetical quirk list is slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the key return fact (a new design id is assigned) and flags the credential side effect. For a 4-param, nested-object import tool this covers what an agent needs, with only error/overwrite behavior 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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description earns an extra point by explaining what 'sanitize' actually does ('first fixing known import quirks (unwrapped list items, flat-format fields)') and clarifying that filePath and envelope are alternatives. The version override parameter is left unexplained beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Imports a design envelope (MPB export format)') plus the two input modes (file or inline JSON), which distinguishes it from mpb_create_design. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the import-vs-create boundary.

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?

Implies usage via 'from a file or inline JSON' and warns that credentials must be re-entered before a source test passes, which is useful sequencing guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over mpb_create_design or what to do if the envelope is invalid, leaving the main routing decision implicit.

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