Specky

Generate API Documentation

sdd_generate_api_docs

Extracts API endpoints from DESIGN.md and generates structured API documentation with request/response examples for each feature.

Instructions

Extracts API endpoints from DESIGN.md and generates structured API documentation with request/response examples. Writes to docs/api-{feature}.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": {
      "feature_number": "<feature_number>"
    },
    "name": "sdd_generate_api_docs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spec_dir`	No	Spec directory.	.specs
`feature_number`	Yes	Zero-padded feature number.

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 clearly states that the tool writes to a file (side effect) and specifies the input source (DESIGN.md). Annotations are all false, so the description adds behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not discuss error handling or prerequisites beyond the input file existence.

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?

The description is extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core action and then specifying the output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters (both documented in schema) and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool produces (structured API documentation with examples) and where it writes the output. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use without confusion.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides no additional meaning for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (feature_number pattern and spec_dir default).

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 clearly states that the tool extracts API endpoints from DESIGN.md and generates structured API documentation. It specifies the output file pattern (docs/api-{feature}.md), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sdd_generate_docs and sdd_generate_all_docs that generate more general documentation.

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 when to use this tool (when API documentation needs to be generated from DESIGN.md), but it does not explicitly provide guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternatives such as sdd_generate_docs for non-API documentation.

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

Deploy Server