Hostaway MCP Server

# API Contract Quality Checklist **Feature**: API-Level Response Summarization (009-add-api-level) **Purpose**: Documentation Quality - Validate completeness and clarity of API contract requirements **Depth**: Standard **Focus**: API Contract Quality **Created**: 2025-10-30 **Status**: Active (Post-Implementation Audit) --- ## Checklist Summary This checklist validates the **quality of API contract requirements** (not implementation behavior). Each item tests whether the specification documentation is complete, clear, consistent, and measurable for the API-level response summarization feature. **Intended Use**: Post-implementation audit to ensure requirements are properly documented for future maintainers and API consumers. --- ## Requirement Completeness ### Query Parameter Specification - [ ] CHK001 - Are parameter types, default values, and accepted truthy values exhaustively documented for the `summary` query parameter? [Completeness, Spec §FR-001, FR-002] - [ ] CHK002 - Are query parameter requirements specified consistently for both list endpoints (`/api/listings`, `/api/reservations`)? [Consistency, Spec §FR-001] - [ ] CHK003 - Is the behavior of the `summary` parameter on detail endpoints (`/api/listings/{id}`) explicitly defined? [Completeness, Spec §FR-007] - [ ] CHK004 - Are requirements specified for handling malformed or unexpected query parameter values? [Gap, Edge Case] ### Response Schema Definition - [ ] CHK005 - Are all essential fields for `SummarizedListing` explicitly enumerated with data types? [Completeness, Spec §FR-003, Data Model §1] - [ ] CHK006 - Are all essential fields for `SummarizedBooking` explicitly enumerated with data types? [Completeness, Spec §FR-003, Data Model §2] - [ ] CHK007 - Is the mapping between full response fields and summarized fields documented for both entities? [Clarity, Data Model §1, §2] - [ ] CHK008 - Are null/optional field behaviors explicitly specified in summarized responses? [Completeness, Data Model §3] - [ ] CHK009 - Are the conditions under which fields may be null documented (e.g., `city`, `country`)? [Clarity, Spec §Edge Cases, Data Model §1] ### Field-Level Requirements - [ ] CHK010 - Are validation constraints (e.g., `bedrooms ≥ 0`, `totalPrice ≥ 0`) specified for all numeric fields? [Completeness, Data Model §1, §2] - [ ] CHK011 - Is the ISO 8601 date format requirement (YYYY-MM-DD) explicitly stated for booking date fields? [Clarity, Spec §FR-003, Data Model §2] - [ ] CHK012 - Are field naming conventions (camelCase vs snake_case) documented for API responses? [Gap] - [ ] CHK013 - Is the derivation logic for computed fields (e.g., `status` from `isActive`) clearly specified? [Clarity, Data Model §1] - [ ] CHK014 - Are field description strings defined for all summarized entity fields to support OpenAPI documentation? [Completeness, Data Model §1, §2] ### Pagination Metadata Requirements - [ ] CHK015 - Are pagination metadata requirements (`total`, `limit`, `offset`) specified for summarized responses? [Completeness, Spec §FR-006] - [ ] CHK016 - Is the new `note` field in `PageMetadata` documented with its purpose and usage patterns? [Clarity, Spec §FR-005, Data Model §3] - [ ] CHK017 - Are the exact note field values specified for each endpoint (listings vs. reservations)? [Clarity, Spec §FR-005] - [ ] CHK018 - Is the conditional inclusion of the `note` field (only when `summary=true`) explicitly stated? [Completeness, Gap] --- ## Requirement Clarity ### Ambiguous Terms & Quantification - [ ] CHK019 - Is "essential fields" defined with specific field enumeration rather than subjective criteria? [Clarity, Spec §FR-003] - [ ] CHK020 - Is the "80-90% smaller" response size reduction quantified with measurement methodology? [Measurability, Spec §SC-001] - [ ] CHK021 - Are "truthy values" for the boolean parameter exhaustively listed? [Clarity, Spec §FR-002] - [ ] CHK022 - Is "silently ignore" behavior clearly defined (no error, no warning, no response field)? [Clarity, Spec §FR-007] - [ ] CHK023 - Is "full details" clearly contrasted against "summarized" with field-level comparison? [Clarity, Gap] ### Response Type Specification - [ ] CHK024 - Is the conceptual response type (`PaginatedResponse[SummarizedListing] | PaginatedResponse[dict]`) reconciled with the actual implementation workaround (`response_model=None`, `Any` return type)? [Clarity, Plan §API Contracts] - [ ] CHK025 - Is the rationale for the FastAPI Union type workaround documented for future maintainers? [Clarity, Plan §API Contracts, Implementation Note] - [ ] CHK026 - Are OpenAPI schema generation implications of the workaround explained? [Clarity, Plan §Schema Generation] - [ ] CHK027 - Is the dynamic response type behavior (summary vs. full) clearly documented in API contracts? [Clarity, Plan §Modified Endpoints] ### HTTP Semantics - [ ] CHK028 - Are HTTP status code requirements explicitly stated for summarized responses? [Completeness, Spec §FR-009] - [ ] CHK029 - Are error response formats specified to match full response error handling? [Consistency, Spec §FR-009] - [ ] CHK030 - Are content-type headers (`application/json`) explicitly required? [Gap] - [ ] CHK031 - Are rate limiting requirements documented to apply equally to summarized and full responses? [Completeness, Gap] --- ## Requirement Consistency ### Cross-Endpoint Alignment - [ ] CHK032 - Are summary parameter behaviors consistent between `/api/listings` and `/api/reservations`? [Consistency, Spec §FR-001] - [ ] CHK033 - Are note field guidance messages consistent in structure and tone across endpoints? [Consistency, Spec §FR-005] - [ ] CHK034 - Are pagination metadata requirements consistent across all response types? [Consistency, Spec §FR-006] - [ ] CHK035 - Are validation rules applied consistently to analogous fields (e.g., `id` in both entities)? [Consistency, Data Model §1, §2] ### Backward Compatibility Requirements - [ ] CHK036 - Is backward compatibility explicitly guaranteed when `summary` parameter is absent or false? [Completeness, Spec §FR-004] - [ ] CHK037 - Are existing API contracts documented to remain unchanged when summary is not used? [Clarity, Spec §SC-003] - [ ] CHK038 - Is the default behavior (`summary=false`) explicitly stated in API documentation? [Clarity, Plan §Modified Endpoints] - [ ] CHK039 - Are migration requirements (or lack thereof) documented for existing API consumers? [Gap] ### Internal Specification Alignment - [ ] CHK040 - Do functional requirements (§FR-003) align with data model field definitions? [Consistency, Spec §FR-003 vs. Data Model §1, §2] - [ ] CHK041 - Do success criteria (§SC-001) align with response size reduction requirements? [Consistency, Spec §SC-001 vs. §FR-003] - [ ] CHK042 - Do assumption statements (§Assumption 4) align with essential field selections? [Consistency, Spec §Assumptions] - [ ] CHK043 - Does the "Out of Scope" section align with documented limitations (e.g., no custom field selection)? [Consistency, Spec §Out of Scope] --- ## Acceptance Criteria Quality ### Measurability - [ ] CHK044 - Can "80-90% smaller" be objectively measured with provided formula and test methodology? [Measurability, Spec §SC-001] - [ ] CHK045 - Can "<1 second response time" be objectively measured for 10 properties? [Measurability, Spec §SC-002] - [ ] CHK046 - Can "100% backward compatibility" be objectively verified through test execution? [Measurability, Spec §SC-003] - [ ] CHK047 - Can "20+ properties without context overflow" be objectively validated? [Measurability, Spec §SC-004] - [ ] CHK048 - Can "90% reduction in support requests" be measured post-deployment? [Measurability, Spec §SC-005] ### Testability - [ ] CHK049 - Are acceptance criteria defined in testable terms (quantitative vs. qualitative)? [Measurability, Spec §Success Criteria] - [ ] CHK050 - Are validation rules specified in a way that allows automated test generation? [Testability, Data Model §Validation Rules] - [ ] CHK051 - Are error scenarios defined with expected status codes and response formats? [Gap] - [ ] CHK052 - Are performance baselines documented to enable before/after comparison? [Gap, Spec §SC-002] --- ## Scenario Coverage ### Primary Flow Requirements - [ ] CHK053 - Are requirements specified for the complete request-response cycle with `summary=true`? [Coverage, Plan §Data Flow] - [ ] CHK054 - Are transformation logic requirements documented (full → summarized)? [Completeness, Plan §Response Transformation Logic] - [ ] CHK055 - Are response serialization requirements specified for Pydantic models? [Gap] ### Alternate Flow Requirements - [ ] CHK056 - Are requirements specified for the default flow (`summary=false` or absent)? [Coverage, Spec §FR-004] - [ ] CHK057 - Are requirements defined for mixed usage (some requests with summary, some without)? [Gap] - [ ] CHK058 - Are requirements specified for pagination with `summary=true`? [Coverage, Spec §FR-006] ### Error/Exception Flow Requirements - [ ] CHK059 - Are error handling requirements defined for invalid field values in source data? [Gap, Exception Flow] - [ ] CHK060 - Are requirements specified for Pydantic validation failures during transformation? [Gap, Exception Flow] - [ ] CHK061 - Are requirements defined for upstream API failures when fetching full data? [Gap, Exception Flow] - [ ] CHK062 - Are timeout/retry requirements specified for summarization requests? [Gap, Exception Flow] ### Edge Case Requirements - [ ] CHK063 - Are zero-state requirements specified (empty list, 0 items)? [Coverage, Edge Case] - [ ] CHK064 - Are requirements defined for null/missing essential fields in source data? [Coverage, Spec §Edge Cases] - [ ] CHK065 - Are requirements specified for partial data availability (some fields missing)? [Gap, Edge Case] - [ ] CHK066 - Are boundary value requirements defined (e.g., 0 bedrooms, very long property names)? [Gap, Edge Case] --- ## Non-Functional Requirements ### Performance Requirements - [ ] CHK067 - Are response time requirements quantified with specific thresholds? [Clarity, Spec §SC-002] - [ ] CHK068 - Are throughput requirements specified (requests per second)? [Gap] - [ ] CHK069 - Are computational overhead requirements quantified (<5ms per 100 items)? [Completeness, Plan §Performance] - [ ] CHK070 - Are memory efficiency requirements defined for transformation operations? [Gap] ### Caching Requirements - [ ] CHK071 - Are cache key differentiation requirements explicitly specified? [Completeness, Spec §FR-010] - [ ] CHK072 - Are cache TTL requirements documented (same TTL for summary and full)? [Clarity, Spec §FR-010] - [ ] CHK073 - Are cache invalidation requirements defined when switching between summary modes? [Gap] - [ ] CHK074 - Are cache strategy implications of URL query parameters documented? [Clarity, Spec §Clarifications] ### Logging & Observability Requirements - [ ] CHK075 - Are logging requirements specified with log level (INFO) and required fields? [Completeness, Spec §FR-011] - [ ] CHK076 - Are the specific fields to be logged enumerated (endpoint, user agent, timestamp, organization_id)? [Clarity, Spec §FR-011] - [ ] CHK077 - Are correlation ID requirements specified for request tracing? [Gap] - [ ] CHK078 - Are monitoring/analytics requirements defined for summary mode adoption tracking? [Gap] ### Security Requirements - [ ] CHK079 - Are authentication requirements documented to remain unchanged for summarized endpoints? [Completeness, Gap] - [ ] CHK080 - Are authorization requirements specified (same permissions as full response)? [Gap] - [ ] CHK081 - Are rate limiting requirements documented to apply equally regardless of summary mode? [Gap] - [ ] CHK082 - Are data exposure requirements validated (summarized fields do not leak sensitive data)? [Gap] --- ## Dependencies & Assumptions ### External Dependencies - [ ] CHK083 - Are upstream Hostaway API response format assumptions documented? [Assumption, Spec §Assumptions] - [ ] CHK084 - Are field availability assumptions validated (e.g., `isActive` always present)? [Assumption, Data Model §Field Mapping] - [ ] CHK085 - Are date format assumptions documented (Hostaway provides ISO 8601)? [Assumption, Data Model §2] - [ ] CHK086 - Are FastAPI/Pydantic version requirements specified? [Dependency, Gap] ### Internal Assumptions - [ ] CHK087 - Is the assumption that consumers will request full details separately validated? [Assumption, Spec §Assumption 1] - [ ] CHK088 - Is the assumption about TokenAwareMiddleware coexistence documented? [Assumption, Spec §Assumption 2] - [ ] CHK089 - Is the assumption about AI assistant usage patterns justified? [Assumption, Spec §Assumption 3] - [ ] CHK090 - Is the assumption about essential field sufficiency validated against use cases? [Assumption, Spec §Assumption 4] - [ ] CHK091 - Is the assumption about response size reduction effectiveness documented? [Assumption, Spec §Assumption 5] ### Assumption Validation - [ ] CHK092 - Are mechanisms defined to validate assumptions post-deployment (e.g., analytics)? [Gap] - [ ] CHK093 - Are contingency requirements specified if assumptions prove incorrect? [Gap] --- ## Ambiguities & Conflicts ### Terminology Consistency - [ ] CHK094 - Is the "Property" vs. "Listing" terminology clarified and used consistently? [Clarity, Spec §Terminology Note] - [ ] CHK095 - Are API endpoint naming conventions (`/api/listings` vs. `/api/reservations`) explained? [Clarity, Gap] - [ ] CHK096 - Is "summarized" vs. "compact" vs. "essential" terminology used consistently? [Consistency, Gap] ### Specification Gaps - [ ] CHK097 - Are all functional requirements (FR-001 through FR-011) addressed in tasks.md? [Traceability, Gap] - [ ] CHK098 - Are OpenAPI specification requirements documented for schema generation? [Gap, Plan §API Contracts] - [ ] CHK099 - Are MCP tool schema update requirements specified? [Gap, Plan §MCP Tool Updates] - [ ] CHK100 - Are versioning requirements defined (API version, schema version)? [Gap] ### Documentation Conflicts - [ ] CHK101 - Does the plan.md FastAPI workaround documentation reconcile with spec.md requirements? [Consistency, Plan §Implementation Note vs. Spec §FR-003] - [ ] CHK102 - Do data model examples align with specification requirements? [Consistency, Data Model §Validation Examples vs. Spec §FR-003] - [ ] CHK103 - Do success criteria align with out-of-scope exclusions? [Consistency, Spec §Success Criteria vs. §Out of Scope] --- ## Traceability & Structure ### Requirement Traceability - [ ] CHK104 - Are all functional requirements tagged with unique IDs (FR-001 through FR-011)? [Traceability, Spec §Functional Requirements] - [ ] CHK105 - Are all success criteria tagged with unique IDs (SC-001 through SC-005)? [Traceability, Spec §Success Criteria] - [ ] CHK106 - Are requirements traceable to user stories (US1, US2, US3)? [Traceability, Spec §User Scenarios] - [ ] CHK107 - Are data model entities traceable to functional requirements? [Traceability, Data Model §Entities] ### Cross-Artifact References - [ ] CHK108 - Do tasks.md tasks reference specific functional requirements? [Traceability, Tasks §Phase descriptions] - [ ] CHK109 - Does plan.md reference specific spec.md sections for design decisions? [Traceability, Plan §Constitution Check] - [ ] CHK110 - Are clarification decisions traceable to specific requirements? [Traceability, Spec §Clarifications] --- ## Completeness Summary **Total Items**: 110 **Categories**: 10 **Traceability Coverage**: 95% (items reference spec sections, data model, or mark gaps) **Focus Distribution**: - Requirement Completeness: 18 items - Requirement Clarity: 13 items - Requirement Consistency: 12 items - Acceptance Criteria Quality: 9 items - Scenario Coverage: 14 items - Non-Functional Requirements: 18 items - Dependencies & Assumptions: 11 items - Ambiguities & Conflicts: 10 items - Traceability & Structure: 5 items --- ## Notes **Remember**: This checklist tests **requirements quality**, not implementation behavior. Each item asks whether the specification documents are complete, clear, consistent, and measurable - NOT whether the code works correctly. **Usage Pattern**: 1. Review each item against spec.md, plan.md, data-model.md, and tasks.md 2. Check the box if the requirement is clearly documented 3. Leave unchecked if the requirement is missing, ambiguous, or unclear 4. Use unchecked items to improve documentation quality **Next Steps**: - Use unchecked items to identify documentation gaps - Update spec artifacts to address clarity/completeness issues - Re-run `/speckit.analyze` to validate improvements