SpecProof

Build Cross-Spec Suite

build_cross_spec_suite

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assemble the normative requirements for one procedure across a spec AND the specs it normatively references — a procedure like registration or handover is never described in a single document. Returns a cited suite plan; feed the requirement_ids to generate_tests.

Args:
    spec_base: The anchor spec, e.g. "23502" or "38331"
    keyword: The procedure/topic, e.g. "registration", "handover", "authentication"
    include_references: Also pull matching clauses from specs this one references (default: True)
    limit: Max requirements in the plan (default: 20, max: 50)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`keyword`	Yes
`spec_base`	Yes
`include_references`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating it returns a 'cited suite plan' and explaining the include_references default. It does not contradict annotations. Could mention more about error cases, but the output schema likely covers return details.

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 tightly structured: a two-sentence overview explaining purpose and output, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 complexity, the description covers purpose, return value, parameter semantics, and the connection to generate_tests. With annotations and an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail every edge case. Minor gaps like handling no-matching results, but overall quite complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description's Args section carries all parameter meaning. It explains all 4 parameters with examples (spec_base, keyword), defaults (include_references, limit), and constraints (max: 50). This goes well beyond the bare schema titles.

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's function: 'Assemble the normative requirements for one procedure across a spec AND the specs it normatively references.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource, and the cross-spec scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_requirements and get_spec_references.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains the rationale for using this tool ('a procedure like registration or handover is never described in a single document') and gives downstream guidance ('feed the requirement_ids to generate_tests'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All SpecProof tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinct but there are clusters of similar functionality, such as multiple search mechanisms (search_specifications, semantic_search, get_requirements with a search parameter) and reference-graph tools (get_spec_references, get_spec_dependents, get_relationship_graph). Descriptions do differentiate them, but an agent could still be uncertain which to use for a given query.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_documents, search_specifications, get_requirements). However, semantic_search is adjective_noun rather than verb_noun, and get_database_stats is a generic outlier among the spec-focused tools. Overall the pattern is consistent with minor deviations.

Tool Count4/5

With 17 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but not excessive for the breadth of functionality: search, metadata, requirements, test generation, relationships, and schemas. Each tool has a defined role, and the count feels warranted for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core workflow well: discovering specs (search_specifications, list_documents), retrieving content (get_document_content, get_requirements), analyzing relationships (get_spec_references, get_spec_dependents), and generating tests (build_cross_spec_suite, generate_tests). Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a direct tool to fetch a requirement's full surrounding clause (workaround via get_document_content), but no critical dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?