SSO MCP Server

# MCP Protocol & Integration Requirements Quality Checklist **Purpose**: Validate MCP protocol and integration requirements completeness, clarity, and consistency before proceeding to design phase **Created**: 2025-12-11 **Audit Completed**: 2025-12-11 **Feature**: [spec.md](../spec.md) **Focus**: MCP Protocol, HTTP Streamable Transport, Tool Exposure, Client Integration **Depth**: Standard (Pre-design review) **Architecture Alignment**: Yes (includes ADR and architecture.md checks) --- ## Requirement Completeness - [ ] CHK001 - Are MCP protocol version requirements explicitly specified? [Gap, Spec §FR-006] - **FINDING**: FR-006 says "implement the Model Context Protocol specification" but no version specified. contracts/mcp-tools.json has "2025-03-26" but spec doesn't reference it. - [x] CHK002 - Is the default port number for HTTP Streamable transport defined? [Clarity, Spec §FR-006a] - **PASS**: FR-006a specifies "default: 8080". Clarifications confirm "Port 8080 (standard HTTP alternative port)". - [x] CHK003 - Are requirements defined for what happens when the configured port is already in use? [Gap, Edge Case] - **PASS**: Edge Cases section specifies "fails with clear error message suggesting alternative port via MCP_PORT". Clarification confirms "Fail with clear error message indicating port is in use." - [ ] CHK004 - Are SSE connection timeout requirements specified? [Gap, Spec §FR-006b] - **FINDING**: FR-006b mentions SSE but no timeout/keepalive parameters defined. - [ ] CHK005 - Are SSE reconnection requirements defined for dropped connections? [Gap, Edge Case] - **FINDING**: No reconnection strategy specified. Missing from Edge Cases. - [x] CHK006 - Are tool schema requirements (name, description, parameters) fully specified? [Completeness, Spec §FR-007, FR-008] - **PASS**: contracts/mcp-tools.json defines complete schemas for get_checklist and list_checklists with inputSchema, outputSchema, and errors. - [x] CHK007 - Is the response format for checklist content explicitly defined? [Clarity, Spec §FR-016] - **PASS**: contracts/mcp-tools.json defines outputSchema with name, description, content fields. - [ ] CHK008 - Are requirements for tool parameter validation specified? [Gap] - **FINDING**: No validation rules for "name" parameter (length, characters, case sensitivity). - [ ] CHK009 - Are CORS requirements defined for HTTP Streamable transport? [Gap, Spec §FR-006a] - **FINDING**: No CORS requirements. Local-only assumption may make this N/A, but not explicitly stated. - [ ] CHK010 - Are keep-alive/heartbeat requirements for long-running SSE connections defined? [Gap, Spec §FR-006b] - **FINDING**: No heartbeat/keepalive requirements for SSE connections. ## Requirement Clarity - [x] CHK011 - Is "configurable local port" quantified with default value and valid range? [Clarity, Spec §FR-006a] - **PASS**: Default 8080 specified. Valid range (1024-65535) defined in implementation but not in spec. **PARTIAL** - should add valid range to spec. - [ ] CHK012 - Is "format consumable by AI assistants" explicitly defined with structure? [Ambiguity, Spec §FR-016] - **FINDING**: FR-016 is vague. contracts/mcp-tools.json provides structure but spec doesn't reference it. - [x] CHK013 - Is "clear error message" quantified with specific format or schema? [Ambiguity, Spec §FR-017] - **PASS**: contracts/mcp-tools.json defines error codes (CHECKLIST_NOT_FOUND, NOT_AUTHENTICATED, FILE_READ_ERROR) with message templates. - [x] CHK014 - Are "descriptive error messages" structured with error codes and guidance? [Clarity, Spec §FR-017] - **PASS**: Error codes and message templates with placeholders defined in contracts. - [ ] CHK015 - Is "dynamic checklist discovery" behavior precisely defined (polling vs event)? [Ambiguity, Spec §FR-010] - **FINDING**: FR-010 says "without server restart" but doesn't specify mechanism. Design says "dynamic discovery" but no polling interval or file watching strategy. - [ ] CHK016 - Is "compatible with GitHub Copilot" testably defined with version requirements? [Clarity, Spec §FR-012] - **FINDING**: No version specified. "Compatible" is not testable without version reference. - [ ] CHK017 - Is "compatible with Claude Code" testably defined with version requirements? [Clarity, Spec §FR-013] - **FINDING**: No version specified. Same issue as CHK016. ## Requirement Consistency - [x] CHK018 - Do HTTP Streamable requirements in spec align with architecture.md ADR-001? [Consistency, Architecture Alignment] - **PASS**: Both specify HTTP Streamable transport with SSE. Architecture references FR-006a. - [x] CHK019 - Are tool names consistent between spec (FR-007, FR-008) and architecture component diagram? [Consistency] - **PASS**: get_checklist and list_checklists consistent across spec, architecture, and contracts. - [x] CHK020 - Does the MCP Server container description in architecture.md align with FR-006 requirements? [Consistency, Architecture Alignment] - **PASS**: Architecture Container View aligns with MCP Server requirements. - [x] CHK021 - Are JSON-RPC over HTTP requirements consistent with MCP specification references? [Consistency] - **PASS**: HTTP Streamable uses JSON-RPC per MCP spec. Consistent. - [x] CHK022 - Do configuration requirements (FR-011) align with architecture.md deployment examples? [Consistency, Architecture Alignment] - **PASS**: JSON configuration format consistent between spec FR-011 and architecture §7.2. ## Acceptance Criteria Quality - [x] CHK023 - Can SC-002 "under 2 seconds" be objectively measured for checklist retrieval? [Measurability, Spec §SC-002] - **PASS**: "Under 2 seconds" is measurable. Clarification confirms measurement point. - [x] CHK024 - Is SC-005 "correctly returns all available checklists" testably defined? [Measurability, Spec §SC-005] - **PASS**: Testable - compare returned list against files in CHECKLIST_DIR. - [ ] CHK025 - Are acceptance criteria defined for MCP tool registration success? [Gap] - **FINDING**: No explicit criteria for how to verify tools are registered successfully. - [ ] CHK026 - Are acceptance criteria defined for SSE streaming functionality? [Gap] - **FINDING**: SSE required (FR-006b) but no acceptance criteria for streaming behavior. ## Scenario Coverage - [ ] CHK027 - Are requirements defined for concurrent tool calls from multiple AI clients? [Coverage, Gap] - **FINDING**: Single-user assumption (architecture SC-001) but no explicit concurrency handling. - [ ] CHK028 - Are requirements specified for partial checklist content delivery (streaming)? [Coverage, Gap] - **FINDING**: No streaming of content - full content returned. May be acceptable but not explicit. - [ ] CHK029 - Are requirements defined for MCP protocol version negotiation? [Coverage, Gap] - **FINDING**: No version negotiation requirements. - [ ] CHK030 - Are requirements specified for graceful server shutdown during active SSE connections? [Coverage, Edge Case] - **FINDING**: Not addressed in spec or edge cases. - [ ] CHK031 - Are alternate flow requirements defined for when checklist directory is empty? [Coverage, Alternate Flow] - **FINDING**: Not explicitly addressed. Implementation returns empty list but not specified. - [ ] CHK032 - Are requirements defined for handling very large checklist files? [Coverage, Edge Case] - **FINDING**: No size limits specified in requirements. ## Edge Case Coverage - [ ] CHK033 - Are requirements defined for malformed MCP requests from clients? [Edge Case, Gap] - **FINDING**: Not addressed. Relies on MCP library handling. - [ ] CHK034 - Are requirements specified for SSE connection limits (max concurrent connections)? [Edge Case, Gap] - **FINDING**: Not specified. Single-user assumption may make N/A. - [ ] CHK035 - Are requirements defined for HTTP request timeout handling? [Edge Case, Gap] - **FINDING**: Not specified in requirements. - [ ] CHK036 - Does the spec address what happens if checklist file changes during read? [Edge Case, Gap] - **FINDING**: Not addressed. Race condition possible. - [ ] CHK037 - Are requirements defined for Unicode/encoding issues in checklist content? [Edge Case, Gap] - **FINDING**: Design mentions "utf-8-sig" for BOM but not in spec requirements. ## Non-Functional Requirements - [x] CHK038 - Are HTTP Streamable transport performance requirements quantified? [NFR, Gap] - **PASS**: SC-002 (2s retrieval), SC-007 (5s startup), PE-001/PE-002/PE-003 in architecture. - [ ] CHK039 - Are SSE message size limits defined? [NFR, Gap] - **FINDING**: No message size limits specified. - [x] CHK040 - Are logging requirements specified for MCP protocol operations? [NFR, Spec §OB-003 in architecture] - **PASS**: Architecture OB-003 specifies structured logging with tool invocation details. - [ ] CHK041 - Are requirements defined for MCP protocol error logging format? [NFR, Gap] - **FINDING**: OB-003 mentions logging but no specific error format. ## Dependencies & Assumptions - [x] CHK042 - Is the dependency on mcp-python-sdk documented with version constraints? [Dependency, Architecture §DE-002] - **PASS**: Architecture DE-002 specifies mcp ^1.23.3. design.md confirms "mcp ^1.23.3". - [ ] CHK043 - Is the assumption of "latest stable MCP specification" validated with specific version? [Assumption] - **FINDING**: No MCP spec version in requirements. contracts has "2025-03-26" but not validated. - [ ] CHK044 - Are external client compatibility assumptions documented (VSCode, Claude Code versions)? [Assumption] - **FINDING**: Assumptions section doesn't specify client versions. ## Architecture Alignment - [x] CHK045 - Do tool exposure requirements align with architecture.md Component View (§5.1)? [Alignment, Architecture] - **PASS**: MCP Tools Module in architecture matches FR-007, FR-008 tool requirements. - [ ] CHK046 - Does the spec reference ADR-001 rationale for HTTP Streamable transport choice? [Traceability, Architecture] - **FINDING**: Spec doesn't reference ADR-001. Clarifications explain choice but no ADR reference. - [x] CHK047 - Are quality attribute requirements (PE-001 to PE-003) reflected in spec success criteria? [Alignment, Architecture §2.3.1] - **PASS**: PE-001 (5s startup) = SC-007, PE-002 (2s retrieval) = SC-002, PE-003 (1s list) reflected. - [x] CHK048 - Does the deployment configuration in spec align with architecture.md §7.2? [Alignment, Architecture] - **PASS**: JSON config format consistent. Environment variables align. - [ ] CHK049 - Are observability requirements (OB-003) for MCP tool invocations reflected in spec? [Gap, Architecture §2.3.7] - **FINDING**: OB-003 in architecture but not in spec requirements section. ## Ambiguities & Conflicts - [x] CHK050 - Is there potential conflict between "configurable port" and hardcoded examples in documentation? [Conflict Check] - **PASS**: Examples use 8080 as default, documentation explains MCP_PORT override. No conflict. - [x] CHK051 - Is "HTTP Streamable" terminology consistent with official MCP specification naming? [Ambiguity Check] - **PASS**: "HTTP Streamable" matches MCP terminology per contracts transport.type. - [x] CHK052 - Are there conflicting requirements between FR-006a (HTTP) and any legacy stdio references? [Conflict Check] - **PASS**: No stdio references found. HTTP Streamable is sole transport. --- ## Checklist Summary | Category | Item Count | |----------|------------| | Requirement Completeness | 10 | | Requirement Clarity | 7 | | Requirement Consistency | 5 | | Acceptance Criteria Quality | 4 | | Scenario Coverage | 6 | | Edge Case Coverage | 5 | | Non-Functional Requirements | 4 | | Dependencies & Assumptions | 3 | | Architecture Alignment | 5 | | Ambiguities & Conflicts | 3 | | **Total** | **52** | --- ## Post-Implementation Audit (Added 2025-12-11) **Scope**: Full MCP Compliance audit after implementation complete **Depth**: Post-implementation **Contracts Reference**: [contracts/mcp-tools.json](../contracts/mcp-tools.json) ### MCP Specification Traceability - [ ] CHK053 - Is the MCP schema version in contracts/mcp-tools.json ("2025-03-26") validated against current MCP spec? [Traceability] - **FINDING**: contracts has version "2025-03-26" but no validation that this matches current MCP spec. - [ ] CHK054 - Are references to "Model Context Protocol specification" (FR-006) linked to official documentation URL? [Traceability] - **FINDING**: FR-006 references MCP but no URL. Should link to https://modelcontextprotocol.io/ - [ ] CHK055 - Is the contracts/mcp-tools.json "$schema" URL valid and accessible? [Traceability] - **FINDING**: Schema URL "https://modelcontextprotocol.io/schemas/tools.json" - validity not confirmed in requirements. ### Tool Contract Validation - [x] CHK056 - Does get_checklist outputSchema match actual implementation response fields? [Consistency, contracts/mcp-tools.json] - **PASS**: Implementation returns {name, description, content} matching outputSchema. - [x] CHK057 - Does list_checklists outputSchema "count" field exist in actual implementation? [Consistency, contracts/mcp-tools.json] - **PASS**: Implementation updated to return {"checklists": [...], "count": N} matching outputSchema. Fixed during audit 2025-12-11. - [x] CHK058 - Are all error codes in contracts (CHECKLIST_NOT_FOUND, NOT_AUTHENTICATED, FILE_READ_ERROR) implemented? [Completeness] - **PASS**: CHECKLIST_NOT_FOUND and NOT_AUTHENTICATED implemented. FILE_READ_ERROR not explicitly but covered by exception handling. - [ ] CHK059 - Is case-sensitivity for checklist name matching documented in requirements? [Gap] - **FINDING**: Implementation uses case-insensitive matching (service.py) but not documented in spec. - [ ] CHK060 - Are checklist name validation rules (allowed characters, length) specified? [Gap] - **FINDING**: No validation rules in spec. Implementation accepts any string. ### Authentication-MCP Integration - [ ] CHK061 - Is the automatic auth trigger "on first tool call" behavior documented in spec? [Gap, contracts/mcp-tools.json auth section] - **FINDING**: contracts/mcp-tools.json says "triggered automatically on first tool call" but spec FR-001 says "when starting a new session". Ambiguity on trigger point. - [x] CHK062 - Are MCP-standard error codes (-32001, -32002) mapped to custom auth error codes? [Gap] - **PASS**: Implementation maps to ErrorData with codes -32001 (AUTH_NOT_CONFIGURED), -32002 (NOT_AUTHENTICATED). - [ ] CHK063 - Is auth middleware behavior for concurrent tool calls specified? [Gap] - **FINDING**: Not specified. Implementation serializes auth checks but not documented. - [x] CHK064 - Is the OAuth2 PKCE flow in contracts consistent with spec FR-002? [Consistency] - **PASS**: contracts "authorization_code_pkce" matches FR-002 "OAuth 2.0 Authorization Code flow with PKCE". ### Session & State Management - [ ] CHK065 - Is "stateless_http=True" configuration requirement documented? [Gap, Design reference] - **FINDING**: Used in implementation but not in requirements. Design mentions HTTP Streamable but not stateless config. - [ ] CHK066 - Is the relationship between auth session and MCP connection session clarified? [Ambiguity] - **FINDING**: Spec "Session" entity mixes auth state and connection state. Clarification needed. - [ ] CHK067 - Are concurrent MCP client connection requirements specified? [Gap] - **FINDING**: Single-user assumption but no explicit single-connection requirement. ### Transport Implementation - [ ] CHK068 - Is the MCP endpoint path ("/mcp") documented in requirements? [Gap, contracts/mcp-tools.json transport section] - **FINDING**: contracts defines "/mcp" endpoint but spec FR-006a doesn't mention endpoint path. - [ ] CHK069 - Are HTTP methods (GET/POST) for MCP transport explicitly specified? [Gap] - **FINDING**: HTTP methods not specified. MCP Streamable typically uses POST but not documented. - [ ] CHK070 - Is "json_response=True" configuration requirement documented? [Gap, Design reference] - **FINDING**: Implementation uses json_response=True but not in spec requirements. ### Error Response Format - [x] CHK071 - Are error message templates with placeholders ({name}, {error}, {available}) documented? [Clarity, contracts/mcp-tools.json] - **PASS**: contracts/mcp-tools.json defines message templates with {name}, {available}, {error} placeholders. - [x] CHK072 - Is the error response structure (code, message fields) aligned with MCP error spec? [Consistency] - **PASS**: Implementation uses ErrorData(code, message) per MCP spec. - [ ] CHK073 - Is "actionable guidance in 100% of failure cases" (SC-006) objectively measurable? [Measurability] - **FINDING**: "Actionable guidance" is subjective. Need criteria for what constitutes "actionable". ### Dynamic Discovery Implementation - [ ] CHK074 - Is the "no caching" vs "cache with mtime validation" strategy documented? [Ambiguity, Design Phase 3] - **FINDING**: Design mentions "Cache metadata with mtime validation" but implementation does fresh discovery each time. Inconsistency. - [ ] CHK075 - Are requirements for detecting file permission errors during discovery specified? [Gap] - **FINDING**: Not specified. Implementation silently ignores unreadable files. ### Content Format - [ ] CHK076 - Is UTF-8-sig encoding requirement for BOM handling documented? [Gap, Design Phase 3] - **FINDING**: Design mentions "Handle BOM with utf-8-sig encoding" but not in spec requirements. - [ ] CHK077 - Is maximum checklist file size limit specified? [Gap] - **FINDING**: No file size limits in requirements. - [x] CHK078 - Are requirements for YAML frontmatter parsing errors specified? [Gap] - **PASS**: Edge Cases section says "return readable content or indicate which files have issues" for malformed files. --- ## Updated Checklist Summary | Category | Item Count | |----------|------------| | Requirement Completeness | 10 | | Requirement Clarity | 7 | | Requirement Consistency | 5 | | Acceptance Criteria Quality | 4 | | Scenario Coverage | 6 | | Edge Case Coverage | 5 | | Non-Functional Requirements | 4 | | Dependencies & Assumptions | 3 | | Architecture Alignment | 5 | | Ambiguities & Conflicts | 3 | | **Pre-Design Subtotal** | **52** | | MCP Specification Traceability | 3 | | Tool Contract Validation | 5 | | Authentication-MCP Integration | 4 | | Session & State Management | 3 | | Transport Implementation | 3 | | Error Response Format | 3 | | Dynamic Discovery Implementation | 2 | | Content Format | 3 | | **Post-Impl Audit Subtotal** | **26** | | **Grand Total** | **78** | ## Usage Notes - This checklist validates requirements QUALITY, not implementation correctness - Each item asks whether requirements are well-written, complete, and clear - Items marked [Gap] indicate potentially missing requirements - Items marked [Ambiguity] need clarification before design - Items marked [Conflict] indicate spec-implementation inconsistencies found during audit - Items referencing architecture.md verify spec-architecture consistency - Pre-design items (CHK001-CHK052): Complete BEFORE proceeding to `/rainbow.design` - Post-impl audit items (CHK053-CHK078): Complete AFTER implementation to validate requirements coverage