ONES Doc MCP

Get ONES Requirement Detail By Ref

get_requirement_detail_by_ref

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve requirement body, fields, and related task facts from ONES Doc MCP by requirement number, task ID, or task URL.

Instructions

Get requirement body, fields, and related task facts by requirement number, task id, or task URL.

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": {
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "get_requirement_detail_by_ref"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entity`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`raw_payload`	Yes
`custom_fields`	Yes
`related_tasks`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.1.0Oct 5, 2026
Removedv2.0.1Jul 26, 2026
First observedv1.4.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful note that related task facts are returned alongside the requirement body, but contributes nothing on lookup failure behavior or ref-resolution rules beyond that.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the returned payload, then the accepted identifier forms. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the single required parameter is explained via its accepted forms. The only real gap is sibling disambiguation against 'get_requirement_detail', which the description never addresses.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the bare 'ref' string carries no meaning in the schema. The description compensates by enumerating the three acceptable forms — requirement number, task id, or task URL — which is exactly the missing information an agent needs.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('requirement body, fields, and related task facts'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the non-ref sibling 'get_requirement_detail', leaving the naming convention as the only differentiator.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over 'get_requirement_detail', 'resolve_requirement', or 'extract_requirement_materials_by_ref'. Usage is only implied by the tool name, with no conditions or exclusions stated.

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