IEC 62304 Requirements MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_requirement

Create structured software requirements compliant with IEC 62304, including ID, title, description, category, priority, and safety classification to ensure traceability and regulatory compliance.

Instructions

Create a new software requirement (IEC 62304 Section 5.2.2)

Args: req_id: Unique requirement ID (e.g., SWR-001) title: Short descriptive title (10-200 chars) description: Detailed requirement description (min 20 chars) category: functional, performance, interface, safety, security, usability priority: critical, high, medium, low created_by: Name of person creating requirement safety_classification: class_a, class_b, or class_c (default: class_c) rationale: Justification for the requirement (optional) acceptance_criteria: Verification criteria (optional)

Returns: Success message with requirement ID

Example: create_requirement( req_id="SWR-001", title="User Authentication Required", description="The system shall authenticate users using bcrypt algorithm with minimum 12 rounds before granting access to patient data", category="security", priority="critical", created_by="John Doe", rationale="Required for HIPAA compliance" )

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": {
      "req_id": "<req_id>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "description": "<description>",
      "category": "<category>",
      "priority": "<priority>",
      "created_by": "<created_by>"
    },
    "name": "create_requirement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`title`	Yes
`req_id`	Yes
`category`	Yes
`priority`	Yes
`rationale`	No
`created_by`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`acceptance_criteria`	No
`safety_classification`	No	class_c

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses parameter constraints (title 10-200 chars, description min 20), optional fields, defaults (safety_classification default class_c), and return value (success message with ID). It does not specify error behavior for duplicate IDs or permission requirements, but covers the essential creation behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a one-line summary, Args list, Returns line, and an example. Every section adds necessary information without redundancy. It is efficiently organized and front-loaded with purpose.

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?

The description covers all nine parameters, includes a concrete example, and states the return value. Though it doesn't enumerate error scenarios, the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the comprehensive parameter documentation make it complete enough for a create tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section provides meanings, valid enums, constraints, and default for every parameter. The example demonstrates realistic usage. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, adding significant semantic value.

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 opens with 'Create a new software requirement', which uses a specific verb and resource, and specifies the IEC 62304 Section 5.2.2 standard. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like update_requirement and get_requirement by defining its distinct creation role.

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 clearly states this is for creating a new requirement, which implies its use case. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention update_requirement for modifications, so it provides clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server