Claude Memory MCP

memory_import_claude_md

Import a project's CLAUDE.md file into categorized memory entries, optionally replacing it with a pointer to memory MCP.

Instructions

Import a project's CLAUDE.md into memory as categorized entries.

path is the CLAUDE.md file or the directory containing it. Headings are mapped to categories (rules, architecture, decisions, devops, docs...) and rule sections are split per bullet. When stub_rewrite=True, CLAUDE.md is replaced with a slim pointer at memory MCP (the original is backed up).

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "memory_import_claude_md"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`project`	No
`stub_rewrite`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: heading-to-category mapping, bullet splitting, and stub_rewrite with backup. It covers the main side effects but lacks details on error handling or idempotency.

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?

Concise two-paragraph structure with clear first sentence and efficient bullet-like details. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers main functionality and parameters well, but lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., file existence), error cases, or return value details (though output schema exists). Still fairly complete.

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 0%, but description explains 'path' (file or directory) and 'stub_rewrite' (replaces file with pointer). However, 'project' parameter is not described, requiring inference from default null.

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 states exactly what the tool does: import a CLAUDE.md file into memory with category mapping and optional stub rewrite. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_import and memory_load_from_folder by focusing on CLAUDE.md files.

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 implies usage for importing CLAUDE.md files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_import or when not to use it. No exclusions or context provided.

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