Specky

Generate Full Documentation

sdd_generate_docs

Generates comprehensive feature documentation by combining specification, design, tasks, and analysis files into a single Markdown document.

Instructions

Generates comprehensive feature documentation from SPECIFICATION.md, DESIGN.md, TASKS.md, and ANALYSIS.md. Writes a combined Markdown file to docs/ with all sections.

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_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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations lack behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), so the description must carry the burden. It mentions writing a file but does not disclose overwrite behavior, failure conditions if input files are missing, or error handling. The agent cannot infer side-effect risks.

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, no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and inputs, the second the output location. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

With 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers inputs and output location adequately but lacks details on side effects (overwrite, error on missing files). It is minimally complete but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides; 'feature_number' pattern and 'spec_dir' default are already clear. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'generates' and the resource 'comprehensive feature documentation', listing specific input files and output location. It distinguishes from sibling doc generation tools by specifying the exact inputs and output.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other doc generation siblings like sdd_generate_api_docs or sdd_generate_all_docs. The description implies a context but does not provide explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

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

Deploy Server