Import a per-page text dataset and re-embed it under the current model, replacing existing copies. Imported sources are detached, so sync won't delete them.
Import a per-page text dataset, re-embedding under the current model.
Replaces existing copies; imported sources are detached so sync won't delete them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fmt | No | ||
| dataset | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Input schema / properties / dataset / titleRemoved value: -"Dataset"Input schema / properties / fmt / defaultRemoved value: -""Input schema / properties / fmt / titleRemoved value: -"Fmt"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"import_datasetArguments"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: replaces existing copies and detaches imported sources from sync. However, it lacks details on authorization, rate limits, or potential side effects on other 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?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds essential behavioral context. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 and the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the main action, replacement, and detachment. It lacks details on re-embedding process and prerequisites but is generally sufficient.
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%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the 'dataset' parameter (the dataset to import) but does not mention the 'fmt' parameter at all, leaving its purpose unclear.
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 the tool imports a per-page text dataset and re-embeds it under the current model. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like export_dataset by specifying the action and additional behavior of replacing copies and detaching sources.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., crawl, add). The description does not specify prerequisites or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.