agent-memory-mcp

memory_import

Destructive

Import memory data from JSON or Markdown files or inline content, with options to preview changes and handle conflicts via skip, update, or copy strategies.

Instructions

Import versioned JSON, Markdown, or Claude Code memory from an explicit path (or inline data for JSON/Markdown). Defaults to preview; set dry_run:false to commit. Conflicts: skip/update/copy.

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": {
      "format": "<format>"
    },
    "name": "memory_import"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`data`	No
`path`	No
`backup`	No
`format`	Yes
`dry_run`	No
`project`	No
`conflict`	No	skip
`namespace`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description transparently discloses the preview/commit workflow and conflict resolution options, which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation. It adds useful context beyond the schema about default dry-run behavior and potential overwrites via 'update' conflicts.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise and well-structured in two sentences, covering the core action, input modes, default behavior, and conflict handling without redundant text.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects needed to invoke it correctly. It could mention side effects more explicitly, but the dry_run and conflict details provide sufficient operational context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explains key parameters like path, data, dry_run, conflict, and format, but leaves namespace, project, and backup undefined. Since the schema provides no descriptions and these parameters are relevant for scoping and safety, the coverage is incomplete.

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?

The description clearly states the tool imports memory data in specific formats (JSON, Markdown, Claude Code) from a path or inline, and explains the commit/preview behavior. It also distinguishes the action from siblings like memory_export and memory_add by focusing on importing external/versioned memory.

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?

The description explains how to use the tool (path vs inline, dry_run, conflict modes) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as memory_add or memory_restore. It gives operational guidance but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.

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