dpanel_explorer_importImport files into a DPanel-managed Docker environment by specifying a mount point, source file list, and destination path, enabling agents to transfer files directly.
导入文件。file_list: [{name, path}]。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dst_path | Yes | ||
| file_list | Yes | ||
| mount_point | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that files are imported, a mutation implied by the verb; it says nothing about overwrite/merge behavior on existing destination files, permission requirements, size limits, or whether the operation is reversible.
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?
Two short fragments with zero padding, and the action is front-loaded. The brevity is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, but nothing is wasted or buried.
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 3-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is too thin: destination and mount semantics are undocumented. The existence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the input-side gaps remain significant.
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 0% across all three required parameters, so the description must compensate. It helpfully reveals the item shape of file_list as [{name, path}], but mount_point and dst_path are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to determine their expected format or relationship.
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?
The description states a verb+resource ('导入文件' / import files), which is enough to know it moves files into the explorer. However it never says where files are imported to or from, nor how it differs from the closely named sibling dpanel_explorer_export or dpanel_explorer_unzip, so the purpose is only minimally differentiated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. required mount point validity), and no mention of alternatives such as dpanel_explorer_unzip for archives or dpanel_explorer_export for the reverse direction. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.