Import a permitted local file, public URL, or base64 upload into Plot & Kin, preserving original bytes for reviewable research evidence.
Import one allowed local path, public URL, or base64 file. Use only material the researcher may process. Original bytes are preserved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| path | No | ||
| runId | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| base64 | No | ||
| rights | No | ||
| filename | No | ||
| mimeType | No | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| attribution | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutating, outward-facing nature is already conveyed. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: "one" (single item per call) and "Original bytes are preserved" (the content is stored unaltered). It stops short of auth, size, or duplicate/re-import behavior, but the annotations carry much of the load.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and input modes before the constraint sentence. Every sentence does some work, with no filler or repetition.
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?
Ten parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema mean the description is the only place semantics can live, yet it documents only 3 of 10 inputs. For a mutation tool importing external material into a project/run, this leaves the agent under-informed about rights, attribution, and identity params.
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 coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names the three mutually exclusive source inputs (path, url, base64) but leaves rights, attribution, filename, mimeType, projectId, runId, and title entirely undefined, which is a substantial gap for a 10-param tool.
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 (import) and resource (source) plus the three accepted input modes: local path, public URL, or base64 file. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling import_inbox, so the agent must infer which import channel to pick.
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?
"Use only material the researcher may process" implies a rights/allowed-material precondition, which is a usage constraint. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like import_inbox or source_read, and no exclusions, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.