Alethea

Link requirement/tests/commits

link_requirement

Links an Alethea decision to SpecGate requirement IDs (capability/requirement[#scenario]), test files, and commits for traceability.

Instructions

Link a decision to SpecGate requirement ids (capability/requirement[#scenario]), test files and/or commits.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "link_requirement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`files`	No
`tests`	No
`commits`	No
`validate`	No
`requirement`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not say whether links are additive or idempotent, whether a link can be removed, what the 'validate' flag changes, or what permissions are required. The mutation semantics of 'Link' are implied but never detailed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; the verb and target domain come first. It is efficient, though the compressed 'files and/or commits' phrasing sacrifices some clarity for brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the single sentence is not enough. An agent cannot tell what 'validate' does, what the required 'id' identifies, or what a successful link produces.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It usefully documents the requirement-id format (capability/requirement[#scenario]) and the kinds of targets (tests, files, commits), but leaves 'id' (the required key), 'validate', and 'files' unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource: it links a decision to requirement ids, tests, and commits. The 'SpecGate requirement ids (capability/requirement[#scenario])' phrasing makes the target domain concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like record_decision or supersede_decision.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among siblings (record_decision, search_decisions, etc.). Usage is only implied by 'Link a decision to...' with no statement of at what point in a workflow this should be invoked.

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

Deploy Server