Copies PDF, DOCX, MD, and TXT knowledge-base documents into a named job-hunting campaign so all reference files stay with the campaign.
Copy knowledge-base docs (PDF, DOCX, MD, TXT) into the campaign
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | Yes | One or more file or folder paths to ingest | |
| campaign | Yes | Campaign name (e.g. "default") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a copy (source preserved, KB mutated) and names accepted formats, but says nothing about duplicate handling, overwrite behavior, permissions, or whether ingestion is synchronous.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that conveys verb, resource, formats, and destination.
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?
For a simple two-parameter ingest tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basics. However, it omits the when-to-use distinction from kb_update and the behavior on re-ingesting existing documents, which matter for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, so baseline is 3. The description adds the accepted file formats (PDF, DOCX, MD, TXT), a small amount of meaning beyond the schema's 'file or folder paths'.
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 (copy) and resource (knowledge-base docs) plus the destination (campaign) and supported file types. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling kb_update.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus kb_update, nor on prerequisites such as whether paths must exist or the campaign must already be initialized. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.