Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
iso9000-agentops-mcp

iso9000-agentops-mcp

by orakulzero
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

iso9000_traceability_matrix

Builds a bidirectional Agile V requirements traceability matrix from tests and source, then generates a Markdown report for requirement-to-test coverage verification.

Instructions

Build bidirectional Agile V Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) and Markdown report.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "iso9000_traceability_matrix"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
testsNo
sourceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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, but it only says the tool builds an RTM and Markdown report. It does not disclose side effects, whether files are written, permission requirements, mutation of baselines or audit data, or output structure.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, leading with the action and deliverables. The acronym-heavy phrasing is compact, though it could be slightly clearer for agents unfamiliar with Agile V terminology.

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 build tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two completely undocumented inputs, the description is too sparse. It names the deliverables but leaves input meaning, execution behavior, and output details unspecified.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has two parameters, tests and source, with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter or explain their format, source, or expected content. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 and artifact: building a bidirectional Agile V Requirements Traceability Matrix and a Markdown report. It is clearly distinct from the audit, certification, baseline, and CAPA siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any of them.

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?

It gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of how it relates to the other ISO 9000 tools. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and artifact mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools