SpecProof

Search Specifications

search_specifications

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search across 3GPP, IETF, and Multimedia specification documents using full-text search.

Args:
    query: Search query terms (required)
    doc_type: Filter by document type - "3gpp", "ietf", or "mpeg" (optional)
    spec_number: Filter by specification number (optional) 
    max_results: Maximum number of results to return (default: 10, max: 50)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`doc_type`	No
`max_results`	No
`spec_number`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context such as full-text search capability and max_results limit (default 10, max 50). It does not detail output format, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then provides a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or vague text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, strong annotations, and existing output schema, the description is complete. It fully explains the search scope, all parameters, and key constraints. There is no significant missing information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It succeeds by documenting all four parameters: query (required), doc_type with allowed values, spec_number, and max_results with default and maximum. This goes beyond the schema by adding meaningful constraints and semantics.

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 searches across 3GPP, IETF, and Multimedia specification documents using full-text search. This specific verb+resource+scope effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like semantic_search or list_documents.

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?

The description provides clear context: use this tool when you need to perform a full-text search across these specific document repositories. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined. The detail on doc_type and spec_number filters helps the agent understand usage.

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?