PMFlow MCP

validate_acceptance_criteria

Validates Given/When/Then acceptance criteria syntax and flags non-testable or ambiguous phrasing, helping teams catch unclear scenarios before development begins.

Instructions

Validates acceptance criteria syntax (Given/When/Then) and flags non-testable or ambiguous language.

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": {
      "criteria": "<criteria>"
    },
    "name": "validate_acceptance_criteria"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`criteria`	Yes	List of BDD/Gherkin scenario statements

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses real behavior (syntax checking plus flagging non-testable/ambiguous language), which implies a safe read-only operation, but never states that it is non-mutating, requires nothing else, or how results/errors are reported.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the primary action. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple single-parameter tool this is adequate on the input side, but with no output schema and no annotations the description leaves the return shape (pass/fail vs. list of flags) and the criteria for 'non-testable' undefined, which an agent would want to know.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'criteria' array parameter ('List of BDD/Gherkin scenario statements'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds only the Given/When/Then format expectation, which is marginal beyond the schema's BDD/Gherkin wording.

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?

States a specific verb (validates) and resource (acceptance criteria syntax in Given/When/Then form), plus a secondary action (flags non-testable/ambiguous language). This clearly distinguishes it from the generative/export siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. It does not say whether this should be run before or after decompose_stories/generate_prd, or what to do with the flags it produces.

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

Deploy Server