Entalpa Requirements MCP

Packs Create

packs_create

Create a pack: an expert's checklist that other projects are checked with (projects_review_with_pack). Give its title, what it checks (description), and up to 20 concerns, each a user story from the owner who has it ('As a data protection officer, I want …, so that …') with its owners by name; new names become owners, and owners describes them. Returns the pack as packs_get does.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "packs_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	The pack's title (1-255 characters).
`owners`	No	Owners to describe, or to keep without a concern.
`concerns`	No	Its concerns, at most 20.
`description`	No	What the pack checks, shown on its card.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes
`owners`	Yes
`pack_id`	Yes	A pack's UUID, from packs_list.
`problem`	No	Why it cannot be used yet, if it cannot.
`can_edit`	Yes	Whether packs_update may change it.
`concerns`	Yes
`by_entalpa`	Yes	Published by Entalpa for everyone, and read as published.
`description`	No	What the pack checks.
`version_name`	No	The published version read.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful domain behavior beyond that: the 20-concern limit, the user-story format for concerns, the fact that new owner names become owners, and that the response matches packs_get. It omits authorization, duplicate-title, and error behavior, so it is not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the action and packs the essential constraints into a compact paragraph. It is dense but not wasteful, though splitting inputs and return behavior into separate sentences would improve scanability.

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 full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the key creation semantics, concern limit, owner behavior, and return shape. Missing failure and permission details are minor here because annotations and schemas carry much of that burden.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents title, description, owners, and concerns. The description restates those fields and the user-story format with only modest added meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create a pack. It also defines what a pack is, links it to the downstream projects_review_with_pack use case, and clarifies the return shape by comparing it to packs_get, making it distinguishable from sibling pack tools.

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 gives clear context that a pack is an expert checklist used by projects_review_with_pack, which implies when to create one. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to packs_update for modifying existing packs, so it falls short of full when-to-use guidance.

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

All Entalpa Requirements MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?