Retrieve requirements and their current verification status, optionally filtered by tag or status. Use it to audit traceability and identify gaps between requirements and tests.
List requirements with their current verification status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| status | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| counts | Yes | ||
| requirements | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds one piece of genuine context — that verification status is returned — but says nothing about filtering behavior, result size, or pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is arguably too terse for the 2-parameter filtering surface it hides, but as pure structure it is efficient and well-ordered.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 not be enumerated, and both parameters are optional so invocation risk is low. However, the filter semantics of the two optional parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real gap for a tool whose only knobs are those filters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and neither parameter has a schema description, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'verification status', which loosely corresponds to the status enum parameter, but never explains that tag or status act as filters, nor does it clarify that status accepts one of the defined Status values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (requirements) plus the included payload (current verification status). It reads clearly against the singular sibling get_requirement, but never names alternatives such as coverage_report or find_gaps, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no exclusions. With 11 sibling tools (get_requirement, coverage_report, find_gaps, trace_matrix), an agent gets no signal about why it would choose this over them; usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.