Import COBie Excel data into the project's canonical graph, using an idempotent upsert to update or insert records.
Import a COBie Excel workbook into the project-scoped canonical graph (idempotent upsert).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| excel_path | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| import_version_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'idempotent upsert', indicating safe re-runs and update semantics, and 'project-scoped' clarifies scope. However, it does not mention potential overwrites, validation requirements, or side effects on existing graph data.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant fluff. It leads with the verb and includes key qualifiers ('idempotent upsert', 'project-scoped') without over-explaining.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be described. However, the description lacks contextual distinction from several similar import/update tools among the siblings, and does not mention preconditions (e.g., valid COBie file, existing project). It is adequate but not rich.
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% (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. It only implies project_id via 'project-scoped' and excel_path via 'workbook', but leaves import_version_id completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to understand all parameters.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('COBie Excel workbook' into 'project-scoped canonical graph'), which distinguishes it from the many query/export/validate sibling tools. The mention of 'idempotent upsert' also clarifies its write nature.
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?
The description implies usage for importing a COBie workbook into the graph, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'apply_update_to_graph' or 'load_cobie_summary'. No direct alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.