Create a new requirement within a TestMonitor project by specifying its name, project, and requirement type, so you can define and track project requirements.
Create a requirement. Create a new requirement within a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description does not need to restate those. But it adds no behavioral context beyond them: no mention of required permissions, side effects of creation, or what happens on failure. Nothing new is contributed.
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?
Two sentences are provided where the second is redundant with the first, so half the text does not earn its place. The definition is short but wasteful rather than dense with useful information.
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?
For a creation/mutation tool with a nested required body object and no output schema, the description omits the required inputs and any creation semantics. Annotations cover safety, but an agent still lacks the information needed to call this correctly without reading the full schema.
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?
Reported top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should carry parameter meaning, yet it names none of the three required fields (project_id, name, requirement_type_id) or the optional ones (tags, description, custom_fields). It adds no syntax or format guidance over the raw schema.
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?
The description states a clear verb and resource ("Create a requirement"), so the basic purpose is identifiable. However, the second sentence ("Create a new requirement within a project") merely restates the first with a small scope modifier and provides no differentiation from siblings like post_issue, post_test_case, or post_milestone beyond the resource noun. This lands at minimally viable.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as put_requirement (update) or the batch variants (post_batch_update_requirements). No prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.