Hostaway MCP Server

# Specification Quality Checklist: MCP Server Context Window Protection **Purpose**: Validate specification completeness and quality before proceeding to planning **Created**: 2025-10-15 **Feature**: [spec.md](../spec.md) ## Content Quality - [x] No implementation details (languages, frameworks, APIs) - [x] Focused on user value and business needs - [x] Written for non-technical stakeholders - [x] All mandatory sections completed ## Requirement Completeness - [x] No [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain - [x] Requirements are testable and unambiguous - [x] Success criteria are measurable - [x] Success criteria are technology-agnostic (no implementation details) - [x] All acceptance scenarios are defined - [x] Edge cases are identified - [x] Scope is clearly bounded - [x] Dependencies and assumptions identified ## Feature Readiness - [x] All functional requirements have clear acceptance criteria - [x] User scenarios cover primary flows - [x] Feature meets measurable outcomes defined in Success Criteria - [x] No implementation details leak into specification ## Validation Results ### Content Quality Assessment ✅ **No implementation details**: Spec focuses on pagination, summarization, and token budgets without mentioning specific technologies. Dependencies section notes "Redis/similar" and "Prometheus/StatsD/CloudWatch" as examples only, not requirements. ✅ **User value focused**: Each user story clearly articulates why it matters and what value it delivers to Claude workflows and engineering teams. ✅ **Non-technical language**: Spec is readable by product managers and business stakeholders. Technical concepts (cursors, tokens, chunking) are explained in business terms. ✅ **Mandatory sections complete**: All required sections present with substantial content. ### Requirement Completeness Assessment ✅ **No clarification markers**: Zero [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers in the spec. All decisions have documented reasonable defaults. ✅ **Testable requirements**: Every FR has measurable acceptance criteria: - FR-001: "all list/search endpoints that can return more than 50 items" - testable by data size - FR-002: "default: 50, maximum: 200" - specific numeric limits - FR-010: "when estimated response exceeds configured token threshold (default: 4000 tokens)" - specific threshold - All requirements use "MUST" with concrete conditions ✅ **Measurable success criteria**: 8 success criteria with specific metrics: - SC-001: "99.9% of sessions" - quantitative - SC-002: "reduces by 60%" with baseline "~6000 tokens to ~2400 tokens" - quantitative - SC-003: "95% of list endpoints within 2 weeks" - quantitative with timeline - SC-006: "within 5 minutes (vs 30+ minutes currently)" - time-based with baseline ✅ **Technology-agnostic success criteria**: All SC items focus on user outcomes: - "Claude workflows complete tasks without errors" (not "API returns 200 status") - "token usage per response reduces by 60%" (not "Redis cache hit rate improves") - "Support tickets decrease by 80%" (business outcome, not technical metric) ✅ **Acceptance scenarios defined**: 5 user stories with 16 total acceptance scenarios covering: - Pagination (4 scenarios) - Summarization (4 scenarios) - Configuration (4 scenarios) - Chunking (4 scenarios) - Telemetry (4 scenarios) ✅ **Edge cases identified**: 6 edge cases documented with clear handling strategies: - Invalid cursors - Malformed parameters - Token estimation errors - Unsummarizable data types - Rapid pagination - Real-time data changes ✅ **Scope clearly bounded**: - In-Scope: 7 capabilities listed with clear descriptions - Non-Goals: 4 items explicitly excluded - Out of Scope: 7 items deferred or excluded ✅ **Dependencies and assumptions**: - 10 documented assumptions (JSON serialization, Claude Desktop support, etc.) - 5 dependencies listed (token estimation, config management, metrics, cursor storage, server framework) ### Feature Readiness Assessment ✅ **Functional requirements with acceptance criteria**: All 36 functional requirements are written as testable assertions with clear pass/fail conditions. ✅ **User scenarios cover primary flows**: 5 prioritized user stories cover: - P1: Pagination (most common overflow cause) - P1: Summarization (per-item verbosity) - P2: Configuration (operational flexibility) - P2: Chunking (large content handling) - P3: Telemetry (observability) Priorities reflect value and dependency order - P1 items are foundation for P2/P3. ✅ **Measurable outcomes match success criteria**: Success criteria directly measure user story value: - Story 1 (Pagination) → SC-003 (95% pagination adoption) - Story 2 (Summarization) → SC-002 (60% token reduction) - Story 3 (Configuration) → (implicit in SC-003 via rollout) - Story 5 (Telemetry) → SC-006 (5min diagnostics vs 30min) ✅ **No implementation leakage**: Spec maintains abstraction throughout. When examples are given (Redis, Prometheus), they're clearly marked as examples, not requirements. ## Notes **Specification is READY for planning phase.** All validation criteria pass. The specification is comprehensive, testable, and focused on business value without implementation details. No clarifications needed - all decisions have reasonable documented defaults. Key strengths: - Clear prioritization of user stories enables incremental delivery - Extensive functional requirements (36) provide comprehensive coverage - Success criteria are measurable and include baselines for comparison - Edge cases and risks are thoroughly documented with mitigations - Backwards compatibility requirements ensure safe brownfield deployment Ready to proceed with `/speckit.plan` to create implementation plan.