Specky

Amend Constitution

sdd_amend

Append an amendment to the Constitution changelog and update the amendment count in the frontmatter.

Instructions

Appends an amendment entry to CONSTITUTION.md's changelog and updates the amendment_count in frontmatter.

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": {
      "rationale": "<rationale>",
      "articles_affected": "<articles_affected>",
      "changes_description": "<changes_description>"
    },
    "name": "sdd_amend"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spec_dir`	No	Spec directory path (relative to workspace root)	.specs
`rationale`	Yes	Why this amendment is needed
`feature_number`	No	Feature number (zero-padded, e.g. '001')	001
`articles_affected`	Yes	Which Constitution articles are affected
`changes_description`	Yes	Description of the changes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.4.0-rc.14May 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description clearly states that the tool modifies CONSTITUTION.md by appending a changelog entry and updating frontmatter. With annotations all set to false, the description adequately conveys the write behavior without destructive side effects.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, no filler. Every word provides value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While the output behavior is clear, the description omits prerequisites (e.g., whether CONSTITUTION.md must exist) and does not mention return values (no output schema). Given the tool's role in a workflow, more context would improve completeness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

All 5 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs ('appends', 'updates') and identifies the exact resource ('CONSTITUTION.md'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from its many siblings by focusing on constitutional amendments.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sdd_write_spec). The description is purely functional, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and purpose.

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

Deploy Server