Entalpa Requirements MCP

Stories Update

stories_update

Update a story. With run_align_to_story, an alignment that fails leaves the update saved, and alignment_failure says why.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`story`	Yes	Story fields to update.
`story_id`	Yes	Story UUID.
`project_id`	Yes	Project UUID (database id).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`extra`	No	Optional free-form metadata object.
`content`	Yes	Story text.
`human_id`	Yes	Story human label (e.g. S-3), for creation and display.
`story_id`	Yes	Story UUID (database id).
`project_id`	Yes	Project UUID (database id).
`requirement_ids`	Yes	List of requirement UUIDs (database ids), not content.id.
`stakeholder_ids`	Yes	List of stakeholder UUIDs.
`lifecycle_rollup`	Yes	How the requirements underneath are distributed across lifecycle values.
`alignment_failure`	No	Present when `run_align_to_story` was asked for and the alignment did not finish: why. The story is saved all the same; retry with stories_update and `run_align_to_story: true`.
`outdated_requirement_ids`	No	Requirements written from an earlier text of this story, which may no longer match it. Re-propagating the story revisits them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 20, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / human_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Story human label (e.g. S-3), for creation and display.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "story_id",
-  "project_id",
-  "content",
-  "requirement_ids",
-  "stakeholder_ids",
-  "lifecycle_rollup"
-]New value: +[
+  "story_id",
+  "human_id",
+  "project_id",
+  "content",
+  "requirement_ids",
+  "stakeholder_ids",
+  "lifecycle_rollup"
+]

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: a failing alignment via run_align_to_story still persists the update, and alignment_failure explains the cause — important context an agent couldn't get from annotations alone.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the alignment caveat. No filler, though it is quite terse for a mutation with a trigger flag.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the schema documents all parameters at 100% coverage. The description covers the one subtle behavior (partial-save on alignment failure) that the structured fields don't, making it complete for this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value about the run_align_to_story parameter — that a failure does not roll back the save and produces an alignment_failure reason. That consequence is not conveyed by the schema field description alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a story') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like stories_create, stories_get, and stories_delete. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the name/description pairing leaves no ambiguity about the operation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the operation ('update a story'), and the description discloses the run_align_to_story trigger behavior. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives context, no prerequisites, and no guidance on when to enable alignment.

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?