SpecProof

get_spec_metadata

Get enriched metadata for specifications with filtering.

    Args:
        spec_number: Filter by spec number (partial match)
        series: Filter by series (e.g., "26" for 26.xxx codecs)
        working_group: Filter by working group (e.g., "SA4")
        doc_class: Filter by document class - "TS" or "TR"
        limit: Maximum results (default: 50)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`series`	No
`doc_class`	No
`spec_number`	No
`working_group`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get' implying read-only, but does not mention pagination, response size, authentication needs, or any caveats. The limit parameter hints at potential large result sets, but this is not explicitly discussed.

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 well-structured with a terse introductory sentence followed by a clear Args list. It avoids unnecessary prose, though the five-line parameter list is slightly longer than strictly minimal. Overall, it is efficient and scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. All five parameters are fully described, and the tool's purpose is clear enough. However, the vague term 'enriched metadata' and lack of sibling differentiation leave minor gaps, and no behavioral caveats are mentioned.

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?

The schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: spec_number is a partial match, series uses examples like '26', working_group uses 'SA4', doc_class restricts to 'TS' or 'TR', and limit has a default of 50. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Get enriched metadata for specifications with filtering' which clearly identifies a verb, resource, and filtering scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_specifications or list_documents, leaving some ambiguity about what makes this tool distinct.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists filtering parameters but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or compare to sibling tools like search_specifications or get_series_overview.

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?