# Validation Report

**Document:** docs-bmad/sprint-artifacts/stories/1-10-call-id-tool-implementation-http-operations.context.xml
**Checklist:** .bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/story-context/checklist.md
**Date:** 2025-12-29T15:13:20Z

## Summary
- Overall: 10/10 passed (100%)
- Critical Issues: 0

## Section Results

### Story Context Structure and Completeness
Pass Rate: 10/10 (100%)

#### ✓ Story fields (asA/iWant/soThat) captured
**Evidence:** Lines 13-15 contain complete user story format
```xml
<asA>an AI assistant</asA>
<iWant>to execute RabbitMQ Management API operations with validated parameters</iWant>
<soThat>I can perform actual management tasks on RabbitMQ infrastructure</soThat>
```
**Assessment:** User story properly formatted with all three required fields providing clear role, desire, and benefit.

#### ✓ Acceptance criteria list matches story draft exactly (no invention)
**Evidence:** Lines 33-97 contain 7 detailed acceptance criteria sections
```xml
<acceptanceCriteria>
  1. Tool Registration and MCP Integration
  2. Parameter Validation with Pydantic
  3. HTTP Request Construction and Execution
  4. HTTP Client with Connection Pooling
  5. Response Handling and Formatting
  6. Error Handling and Resilience
  7. Integration with Existing Components
```
**Assessment:** Each AC section includes comprehensive requirements with specific metrics, error codes, timeout values, and integration points. All criteria are testable and measurable.

#### ✓ Tasks/subtasks captured as task list
**Evidence:** Lines 16-30 list 13 tasks with AC cross-references
```xml
<tasks>
  - Task 1: Create HTTPClient Class with Connection Pooling (AC: #3, #4)
  - Task 2: Implement URL Builder (AC: #3)
  - Task 3: Implement Request Body Builder (AC: #3)
  ...
  - Task 13: Documentation and Examples (AC: #1, #3, #5)
</tasks>
```
**Assessment:** All tasks are mapped to specific acceptance criteria, providing clear traceability from requirements to implementation work.

#### ✓ Relevant docs (5-15) included with path and snippets
**Evidence:** Lines 102-156 include 9 doc references with complete metadata
- tech-spec-epic-1.md (3 sections): AC-10 implementation, architecture alignment, services/modules
- architecture-decision-records-adrs.md (2 sections): ADR-002 (3-Tool pattern), ADR-005 (stateless design)
- implementation-patterns.md (2 sections): error handling, code organization
- technology-stack-details.md (1 section): HTTP client details
- 1-9-get-id-tool-implementation.md (1 section): learnings from previous story

**Assessment:** Comprehensive documentation coverage with relevant snippets. Each doc reference includes path, title, section, and contextual snippet explaining relevance to this story.

#### ✓ Relevant code references included with reason and line hints
**Evidence:** Lines 158-207 include 7 code artifacts with detailed metadata
- get_id.py: Reference implementation for tool handler pattern (lines 1-80)
- search_ids.py: Tool registration pattern reference (full file)
- server.py: MCP server initialization and tool registration (lines 1-100)
- call_id.py: Main implementation file (full file)
- settings.py: Configuration management (full file)
- mcp.py: MCP-specific type definitions (full file)
- operations.json: Operations registry data (N/A lines)

**Assessment:** Each artifact includes kind, symbol, line range, and detailed reason explaining its relevance. Provides clear guidance for implementation patterns to follow.

#### ✓ Interfaces/API contracts extracted if applicable
**Evidence:** Lines 249-348 include 5 interfaces with complete signatures
1. **call-id MCP Tool** (lines 249-280): JSON-RPC 2.0 interface with input schema and response format
2. **HTTPClient.request** (lines 282-295): Async method signature with all parameters typed
3. **OperationExecutor.execute** (lines 296-313): Async method with ExecutionResult return type
4. **RabbitMQ Management API** (lines 314-327): External REST API with auth and endpoints
5. **Operations Registry JSON** (lines 329-348): Data structure with operation metadata schema

**Assessment:** All interfaces are well-documented with complete type information, parameter descriptions, and file paths. Provides clear contracts for implementation.

#### ✓ Constraints include applicable dev rules and patterns
**Evidence:** Lines 222-246 include 26 detailed constraints covering:
- HTTP client configuration (connection pooling, timeouts, TLS/SSL)
- Security requirements (auth, no hardcoded credentials, data sanitization)
- Error handling patterns (fail-fast, correlation IDs, actionable messages)
- Code organization (file locations, async/await pattern, type hints)
- Testing requirements (coverage ≥90%, test organization, markers)
- Performance targets (p95 latency <200ms)

**Assessment:** Comprehensive constraints covering all technical aspects: performance, security, code quality, testing, and architectural patterns. All constraints are specific and measurable.

#### ✓ Dependencies detected from manifests and frameworks
**Evidence:** Lines 209-218 list 8 Python packages with versions and purposes
- httpx ≥0.27: Async HTTP client with connection pooling
- pydantic ≥2.0: Data validation and settings management
- structlog ≥24.1: Structured logging with context binding
- mcp ≥1.0.0: MCP protocol implementation
- pytest ≥8.0: Testing framework
- pytest-asyncio ≥0.23: Async test support
- testcontainers ≥3.7: Docker containers for integration tests
- pytest-benchmark (dev optional): Performance benchmarking

**Assessment:** All dependencies include version constraints and clear purpose statements. Covers production, testing, and optional development dependencies.

#### ✓ Testing standards and locations populated
**Evidence:** Lines 352-424 include comprehensive testing guidance
- **Standards** (line 353): pytest framework, async support, mocking strategy, test organization, markers, coverage requirements
- **Locations** (lines 355-361): 5 test file paths organized by type (unit, integration, performance)
- **Test Ideas** (lines 362-424): 62 specific test cases organized by 7 AC sections, each with clear test descriptions

**Assessment:** Testing section provides complete guidance for developers. Standards define the testing approach, locations show where to place tests, and test ideas provide specific scenarios to implement for each acceptance criterion.

#### ✓ XML structure follows story-context template format
**Evidence:** Complete XML document structure (lines 1-426)
```xml
<story-context id=".bmad/bmm/workflows/4-implementation/story-context/template" v="1.0">
  <metadata>...</metadata>
  <story>...</story>
  <acceptanceCriteria>...</acceptanceCriteria>
  <artifacts>
    <docs>...</docs>
    <code>...</code>
    <dependencies>...</dependencies>
  </artifacts>
  <constraints>...</constraints>
  <interfaces>...</interfaces>
  <tests>
    <standards>...</standards>
    <locations>...</locations>
    <ideas>...</ideas>
  </tests>
</story-context>
```
**Assessment:** Document follows the prescribed XML schema with all required sections present and properly nested. Metadata includes all tracking fields, and all content sections are complete.

## Failed Items
None.

## Partial Items
None.

## Recommendations

### Must Fix
None required - all checklist items passed validation.

### Should Improve
None - story context is comprehensive and complete.

### Consider
1. **Potential Enhancement:** The story context is already excellent. Consider this complete and ready for development handoff.

## Overall Assessment

**Status: ✅ READY FOR DEVELOPMENT**

This story context exemplifies best practices for developer-ready documentation:

- **Complete Requirements:** All 7 acceptance criteria are detailed, measurable, and testable
- **Clear Technical Guidance:** 26 specific constraints provide unambiguous implementation rules
- **Reference Architecture:** 9 documentation references and 7 code artifacts show patterns to follow
- **Comprehensive Testing:** 62 test scenarios cover all acceptance criteria
- **Well-Defined Interfaces:** 5 interface contracts with complete type information
- **Zero Ambiguity:** No gaps, no assumptions, no missing information

The developer has everything needed to implement this story without additional requirements discovery or clarification cycles.

**Validation Score: 10/10 (100%)**
