Import files into CLO3D by providing an absolute path; auto-detects format from extension such as .zprj, .zpac, .obj, .fbx, .avt.
Import a file into CLO3D. Auto-detects type from extension (.zprj, .zpac, .obj, .fbx, .avt, etc.).
Args: file_path: Absolute path to the file to import.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It reveals one useful trait (auto-detects type from extension), but does not say whether importing replaces the current project, merges content, requires an existing project, or what happens on unsupported extensions. This is a significant gap for an import operation.
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 two compact sections: a one-sentence purpose and a single argument definition. Every sentence contributes, and the key behavior (auto-detection) is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter tool, the essential invocation detail (absolute file path) is present, and examples of supported extensions are given. However, the description omits the import's effect on the current CLO3D project and does not differentiate from open_file, so an agent may not know the correct context for calling it.
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?
The schema only declares file_path as a string with no description, so the description's 'Absolute path to the file to import' adds the key semantic that the path must be absolute and points to the file. It does not enumerate all supported extensions or constraints, but for a single required parameter this is adequate compensation.
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 opens with a clear verb and object ('Import a file into CLO3D') and adds the auto-detection behavior from extension, which helps distinguish it from more targeted imports like import_avatar or import_collision_object. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the scope is clear enough.
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 guidance is given about when to use import_file versus open_file, import_avatar, or import_collision_object. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions that select it over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.