Entalpa Requirements MCP

Projects Generate

projects_generate

Generate requirement suggestions and revisions, preserving locked requirements. Returns a proposal without applying it, and saves it for review: saved_suggestions lists the saved items' ids, and its review_url opens them in the Entalpa app. Apply the items the user accepts by passing their ids to suggestions_accept, and decline the rest with suggestions_reject. Do not recreate accepted items with the CRUD tools: the saved suggestions would stay pending, to be applied twice. Running this tool again only proposes again, replacing what it saved for the same targets; it applies nothing. Without saved_suggestions, look for the items with suggestions_list, and only when they are not there, create the accepted items with the CRUD tools. May take several minutes; progress notifications report elapsed time when supported.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes	Project UUID (database id).
`max_attempts`	No	Maximum generation attempts, 1 to 3. Defaults to 2.
`subsystem_id`	No	Subsystem UUID (database id).
`user_message`	No	Optional instructions to guide this AI operation.
`creative_mode`	No	Use the creative prompt, which also fills the gaps the stories and description leave (edge cases, failure handling, security, performance, assumed limits), stating in each such requirement's rationale that it is an assumption. Default false: requirements state what the sources state, and a missing value is left to be agreed.
`extra_requirement_attributes`	No	List of extra requirement fields.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`saved_suggestions`	No	What this run saved for review. Apply the items the user accepts by passing their ids to suggestions_accept, and decline the rest with suggestions_reject. review_url opens them in the Entalpa app.
`requirement_updates`	Yes
`new_requirements_suggestions`	Yes
`justification_new_requirements`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations, which only state readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. It discloses that the tool saves proposals without applying them, that re-running replaces prior saved work for the same targets, the double-apply risk, and multi-minute latency with progress notifications.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the non-applying scope before branching into routing. Dense but nearly every sentence carries necessary operational guidance; minor length inflation from the fallback sequence.

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?

For an async, side-effectful generation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description supplies the missing lifecycle context: proposal persistence, idempotency/replacement behavior, review URL, and latency. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter including creative_mode and max_attempts is already documented. The description adds no extra syntax or format guidance for the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: generate requirement suggestions and revisions, preserving locked requirements. The proposal-without-applying scope plus the named sibling tools (suggestions_accept, suggestions_reject, suggestions_list, CRUD tools) make the function unmistakable against its many siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: apply accepted items via suggestions_accept, decline via suggestions_reject, never recreate accepted items with CRUD tools, and fall back to suggestions_list only when saved_suggestions is absent. Routing and exclusions are spelled out.

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

Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?