Specky

Generate Quality Checklist

sdd_checklist

Analyzes SPECIFICATION.md and DESIGN.md to generate a mandatory quality checklist for the specified domain and writes it to CHECKLIST.md.

Instructions

Generates a domain-specific quality checklist (security, accessibility, performance, etc.) by analyzing SPECIFICATION.md and DESIGN.md. Writes CHECKLIST.md.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "sdd_checklist"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No	Overwrite existing files if true
`domain`	Yes	Quality domain for the checklist
`spec_dir`	No	Spec directory path (relative to workspace root)	.specs
`feature_number`	No	Feature number (zero-padded, e.g. '001')	001

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the tool reads SPECIFICATION.md and DESIGN.md and writes CHECKLIST.md. Annotations (readOnlyHint false) are consistent with writing behavior. The force parameter is covered in schema but not in description, but overall transparency is good.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the main inputs (domain, files) and output (CHECKLIST.md). It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., existence of SPECIFICATION.md) or error conditions, but for a checklist generation tool with clear schema, it is largely complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning domains. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters sufficiently.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates a domain-specific quality checklist by analyzing SPECIFICATION.md and DESIGN.md and writes CHECKLIST.md. The verb 'generates' and resource 'quality checklist' are specific, and the tool differentiates from siblings by focusing on checklists.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used to generate quality checklists, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sdd_generate_all_docs or sdd_generate_docs. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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

Deploy Server