Extract structured requirements (REQ-001 style) from Markdown documents, returning each requirement's ID, text, section, priority, and line number for downstream analysis.
Extract identified requirements (REQ-001 style IDs) from a Markdown requirements document. Returns id, text, section, priority and line number for each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output shape (id, text, section, priority, line number) and input format (Markdown), but it does not state whether the operation is non-mutating, how it handles malformed documents, or what happens when no REQ IDs are found. The word 'extract' implies read-only, and the return disclosure adds value, but deeper behavioral context is missing.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, input, and return fields without wasted words. Every clause adds useful information, and it is appropriately sized for a simple extraction tool.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description covers the return fields but omits the key invocation detail: how to supply the document via 'path' or 'text'. Correctly invoking the tool requires understanding this either-or input, so the definition is incomplete despite being readable.
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%, so the description must compensate for the parameter semantics. It does not mention that 'document' accepts either a 'path' or 'text', nor when one should be preferred over the other. This is a significant gap because the nested parameter structure is the sole input and is not explained in the description.
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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') with a specific resource ('identified requirements ... from a Markdown requirements document') and names the exact ID style (REQ-001) and return fields. This clearly positions it against siblings like parse_scenarios and diff_requirements, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting other tool definitions.
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 implies the tool should be used when you need to pull REQ-001 style IDs from a Markdown document, but it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. The context is clear enough, but exclusions are left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.