Hostaway MCP Server

# Feature Specification: Automated Parallel MCP Migration **Feature Branch**: `010-we-need-to` **Created**: 2025-10-30 **Status**: Draft **Input**: User description: "we need to execute on the @docs/MCP_MIGRATION_GUIDE.md and we need to do this in parallel with worktrees to speed up development. we need this to be fully automated as i will be afk, it should be able to work through the whole process without my input" ## User Scenarios & Testing *(mandatory)* ### User Story 1 - Automated Parallel Development (Priority: P1) As a developer with limited availability, I need the MCP migration guide to be executed automatically in parallel using git worktrees, so that all 7 improvements can be implemented simultaneously without requiring my manual intervention. **Why this priority**: This is the core value proposition - unattended parallel execution of the migration guide. Without automation, the 12-16 hour migration becomes a bottleneck requiring constant developer oversight. **Independent Test**: Can be fully tested by executing the automation workflow and verifying all 7 worktrees are created, all fixes are implemented, all tests pass, and all branches are merged without human input. **Acceptance Scenarios**: 1. **Given** the migration guide with 7 distinct fixes (4 HIGH + 3 MEDIUM priority), **When** I trigger the automated workflow, **Then** 7 parallel git worktrees are created, one per fix 2. **Given** 7 worktrees are actively implementing fixes, **When** each fix completes, **Then** automated tests run and pass for that worktree independently 3. **Given** a worktree's tests pass, **When** the fix is complete, **Then** the branch is automatically committed, pushed, and a PR is created 4. **Given** all 7 PRs are created, **When** CI checks pass, **Then** PRs are auto-merged sequentially with proper dependency ordering 5. **Given** the entire workflow is running, **When** an error occurs in one worktree, **Then** other worktrees continue executing and the error is logged for review --- ### User Story 2 - Dependency-Aware Sequencing (Priority: P2) As a system architect, I need the automation to understand fix dependencies, so that later fixes (like Markdown formatting) can build on earlier fixes (like service prefixes) even when executed in parallel. **Why this priority**: While parallelization speeds up development, certain fixes depend on others. This prevents broken builds and ensures correctness. **Independent Test**: Can be tested by verifying that Fix 4 (Markdown support) correctly references `hostaway_list_properties` (renamed in Fix 1) rather than old tool names. **Acceptance Scenarios**: 1. **Given** Fix 1 (service prefixes) completes first, **When** Fix 4 (Markdown) begins implementation, **Then** Fix 4 uses the updated tool names from Fix 1 2. **Given** Fix 3 (error messages) completes before Fix 4 (Markdown), **When** Fix 4 integrates error handling, **Then** it uses the error helper functions from Fix 3 3. **Given** multiple fixes modify the same file section, **When** merging occurs, **Then** conflicts are detected and resolution strategy is applied 4. **Given** a dependency is detected during execution, **When** the dependent fix tries to run, **Then** it waits for the dependency to complete before proceeding --- ### User Story 3 - Comprehensive Test Coverage (Priority: P2) As a quality engineer, I need automated tests to run for each fix independently, so that I can trust the migration maintains system stability and MCP compliance. **Why this priority**: Without automated testing, parallel development introduces risk of breaking changes. Independent test suites ensure each fix is validated. **Independent Test**: Can be tested by running the test suite for Fix 1 in isolation and verifying it validates service prefix changes without requiring other fixes. **Acceptance Scenarios**: 1. **Given** Fix 1 (service prefixes) is implemented, **When** automated tests run, **Then** MCP Inspector validates tool names have `hostaway_` prefix 2. **Given** Fix 2 (annotations) is implemented, **When** tests run, **Then** schema validation confirms all 7 tools have required annotation fields 3. **Given** Fix 3 (error messages) is implemented, **When** tests run, **Then** error scenarios are tested and actionable guidance is verified 4. **Given** Fix 4 (Markdown) is implemented, **When** tests run, **Then** both JSON and Markdown response formats are validated 5. **Given** all fixes pass tests independently, **When** integration tests run, **Then** the complete MCP server passes end-to-end workflows --- ### User Story 4 - Progress Monitoring and Rollback (Priority: P3) As a DevOps engineer, I need real-time visibility into the parallel execution status and the ability to rollback if critical issues arise, so that I can maintain system reliability. **Why this priority**: While not blocking core functionality, monitoring and rollback capabilities are essential for production safety. **Independent Test**: Can be tested by simulating a critical failure and verifying the rollback mechanism restores the system to pre-migration state. **Acceptance Scenarios**: 1. **Given** 7 worktrees are executing in parallel, **When** I query status, **Then** I see real-time progress for each fix (not started, in progress, testing, complete, failed) 2. **Given** Fix 3 fails integration tests, **When** rollback is triggered, **Then** all incomplete fixes are stopped and merged fixes are reverted 3. **Given** all fixes complete successfully, **When** final validation runs, **Then** production deployment gates are checked before releasing 4. **Given** the workflow completes, **When** summary is generated, **Then** a report shows time saved vs sequential execution, test results, and deployment status --- ### Edge Cases - What happens when two fixes modify overlapping code sections (e.g., Fix 3 and Fix 4 both modify `call_tool` function)? - How does the system handle a worktree that gets stuck or times out during execution? - What if GitHub rate limits are hit during parallel PR creation? - How are test failures in one worktree isolated from other worktrees? - What happens if the main branch is updated during parallel execution? ## Requirements *(mandatory)* ### Functional Requirements - **FR-001**: System MUST create 7 isolated git worktrees, one for each fix in the migration guide (Fixes 1-4 + Improvements 1-3) - **FR-002**: System MUST parse the migration guide and extract implementation instructions for each fix - **FR-003**: System MUST execute all 7 fixes in parallel using separate worktrees to minimize total wall-clock time - **FR-004**: System MUST run automated tests for each fix independently after implementation - **FR-005**: System MUST commit changes with descriptive messages following conventional commits format - **FR-006**: System MUST create GitHub PRs for each fix with migration guide references - **FR-007**: System MUST auto-merge PRs sequentially after CI passes, respecting dependency order - **FR-008**: System MUST handle fix dependencies (e.g., Fix 4 depends on Fix 1 for renamed tool names) - **FR-009**: System MUST detect and resolve merge conflicts using predefined strategies - **FR-010**: System MUST provide real-time progress monitoring for all parallel executions - **FR-011**: System MUST generate comprehensive logs for each worktree execution - **FR-012**: System MUST support rollback to pre-migration state if critical failures occur - **FR-013**: System MUST validate MCP compliance after each fix using MCP Inspector - **FR-014**: System MUST produce a final summary report with metrics (time saved, tests passed, fixes merged) ### Key Entities - **Worktree**: Isolated git working directory for implementing a single fix, with its own branch and execution context - **Fix**: A discrete improvement from the migration guide (service prefixes, annotations, error messages, Markdown support, descriptions, validation, truncation) - **Dependency Graph**: Relationship map showing which fixes depend on others (e.g., Fix 4 → Fix 1, Fix 3) - **Test Suite**: Independent tests for each fix that validate implementation correctness - **Execution Context**: State tracking for a worktree including status, logs, test results, and errors ## Success Criteria *(mandatory)* ### Measurable Outcomes - **SC-001**: All 7 MCP migration fixes are implemented and merged within 4 hours of unattended execution (vs 12-16 hours sequential) - **SC-002**: 100% of fixes pass automated tests before merging - **SC-003**: Zero manual interventions required from workflow start to production deployment - **SC-004**: MCP Inspector reports 10/10 compliance score after migration (vs 6.5/10 baseline) - **SC-005**: Final MCP server passes all 7 end-to-end test scenarios defined in migration guide - **SC-006**: Parallel execution achieves 60%+ time reduction compared to sequential implementation - **SC-007**: System handles at least 2 simultaneous merge conflicts without manual resolution - **SC-008**: Rollback mechanism restores system to working state within 5 minutes if triggered ## Assumptions - **Assumption 1**: The migration guide's code examples are complete and executable without modification - **Assumption 2**: The existing test infrastructure (pytest) can be extended to validate each fix independently - **Assumption 3**: GitHub API rate limits will not be hit during parallel PR creation (7 PRs in quick succession) - **Assumption 4**: The FastAPI backend server can remain running while MCP stdio server is being updated - **Assumption 5**: Git worktrees can safely modify `mcp_stdio_server.py` in parallel as long as they merge sequentially - **Assumption 6**: MCP Inspector can be invoked programmatically to validate changes after each fix - **Assumption 7**: The system has sufficient CPU/memory to run 7 parallel Python development environments ## Out of Scope - Creating new MCP tools beyond the existing 7 tools - Refactoring the FastAPI backend (migration guide only touches `mcp_stdio_server.py`) - Implementing MCP features not covered in the migration guide - Setting up continuous deployment infrastructure (assumes existing CI/CD) - Implementing the Guest Communication feature (User Story 4 from original Phase 6, skipped) - Performance optimization beyond what's specified in the migration guide - Custom MCP protocol extensions or non-standard tool behaviors ## Dependencies - **Dependency 1**: Existing git repository with feature branch workflow (001-we-need-to main branch) - **Dependency 2**: Python 3.12+ development environment with uv package manager - **Dependency 3**: pytest test framework with httpx_mock for MCP server testing - **Dependency 4**: GitHub CLI (`gh`) for automated PR creation and management - **Dependency 5**: MCP Inspector (`npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector`) for validation - **Dependency 6**: Access to Claude Code or similar AI coding assistant for implementation - **Dependency 7**: The migration guide document at `docs/MCP_MIGRATION_GUIDE.md` with implementation instructions ## Technical Constraints - **Constraint 1**: All fixes must maintain backward compatibility except for tool name changes (breaking change documented in migration guide) - **Constraint 2**: Test coverage must remain above 80% after all fixes are applied - **Constraint 3**: MCP stdio server must continue to function with Claude Desktop during migration - **Constraint 4**: Git worktrees must be created in temporary locations to avoid disrupting main development environment - **Constraint 5**: Automated tests must complete within 2 minutes per fix to maintain fast feedback loops - **Constraint 6**: Total disk space for all worktrees must not exceed 2GB - **Constraint 7**: All changes must pass pre-commit hooks (ruff, mypy, bandit) before committing