Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
IEC 62304 Requirements MCP Server

IEC 62304 Requirements MCP Server

by Pakawat-Dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

generate_srs_document

Generate a Software Requirements Specification (SRS) document in compliance with IEC 62304 Section 5.2.6, with configurable export path.

Instructions

Generate Software Requirements Specification (IEC 62304 Section 5.2.6)

Args: export_path: File path for SRS document (default: docs/SRS_Document.md)

Returns: Success message with file path

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "generate_srs_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
export_pathNodocs/SRS_Document.md

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It mentions a return value but does not disclose whether the tool overwrites existing files, requires permissions, or the format of the generated content. These behavioral traits remain unclear.

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 concise and well-structured: it states the core purpose first, then lists the argument and return value. No filler or redundant content, every line earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter generation tool, the basics are covered: purpose, argument, and return value. However, missing usage alternatives and overwrite behavior leave clear gaps, making it only minimally complete.

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?

The description explicitly explains export_path as the file path for the SRS document and provides a default value, fully compensating for the absent schema description. This gives the agent clear meaning for the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool generates a Software Requirements Specification with a specific standard reference (IEC 62304 Section 5.2.6), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_traceability_matrix or requirement CRUD operations.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only defines what it does, not when it should be invoked, leaving the agent without explicit decision-making information.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools