WCGW Safety Suite - Functional Safety Requirements and Traceability MCP Server

create_relation

Create a typed relation between two concept revisions.

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": {
      "from_revision_id": "<from_revision_id>",
      "to_revision_id": "<to_revision_id>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "create_relation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	Relation type.
`rationale`	No	Optional rationale.
`to_revision_id`	Yes	Target revision ID.
`from_revision_id`	Yes	Source revision ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-read-only, closed-world write, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description adds almost nothing: it does not say whether duplicate relations are rejected or merged, whether membership in the project is required, or whether an existing relation is overwritten. For a state-mutating create call this leaves meaningful behavior undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the missing context rather than a virtue in itself.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema, the description should indicate what comes back (a relation ID, the created relation object) and any preconditions or error behavior for a mutation tool with three required parameters. None of that is present, so an agent can name the call but not predict its outcome or failure modes.

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 each of the four parameters is already documented in the schema. The description only contributes the framing that from/to are concept revision IDs and that the relation carries a type, which is a marginal addition. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create a typed relation') plus the entities it connects ('between two concept revisions'), so it is clearly distinct from create_concept and delete_relation. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it pairs with as an inverse, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (do both revisions need to exist, belong to the same project, be current?), and no note about what to do if an equivalent relation already exists. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the name alone.

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

All WCGW Safety Suite - Functional Safety Requirements and Traceability MCP Server 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?