SpecProof

RFC Lineage

get_rfc_lineage

Read-onlyIdempotent

An RFC's revision history. RFCs are immutable — an RFC is never revised, it is obsoleted or updated by a different RFC — so this Obsoletes/Updates graph, not a version diff, IS its change history. Use it to find out whether an RFC you depend on has been superseded.

Args:
    rfc: The RFC, e.g. "7231", "rfc7231" or "RFC 7231"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rfc`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context: RFCs are immutable, so the graph is the change history, and this is not a diff. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand the semantic behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured, with a conceptual opening, a practical use case, and a clear Args block. The immutability explanation is slightly verbose but earns its place by clarifying why a graph is the history. No wasted sentences.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the concept, usage, and input format thoroughly. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating what kind of output (e.g., list of RFCs) but that is delegated to the schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear meaning ('The RFC') and gives three accepted formats ('7231', 'rfc7231', 'RFC 7231'), which fully disambiguates the single parameter. This is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 provides an RFC's revision history via an Obsoletes/Updates graph, explicitly distinguishing it from a version diff. It also gives a concrete use case: 'find out whether an RFC you depend on has been superseded.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like diff_spec_versions and get_spec_dependents.

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 provides a clear 'when to use' statement with the superseded check, and explicitly excludes version diffs ('not a version diff'), giving context for selection among siblings. It does not name alternative tools, but the exclusion is sufficient for typical decision-making.

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?