Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenSpec MCP Server

OpenSpec MCP Server

by igor-olikh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

openspec_new_change

Create a new OpenSpec change directory: provide a change name and optionally add a description to the README.md.

Instructions

Create a new change directory

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "openspec_new_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the change
descriptionNoDescription to add to README.md

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions the action of creating a change directory but does not explain side effects, what files are generated, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for a mutation-style tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence without any fluff, which is efficient. However, it is arguably too terse to be fully informative, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain what a 'change directory' is, what gets created, or anything about the surrounding workflow, which would be necessary for an agent to use it correctly in context.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (name and description) with descriptions, and schema_description_coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but per rubric, with high coverage this is acceptable. However, it does not compensate for any nuance beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Create a new change directory' clearly states the verb (create) and resource (change directory), making it easy to understand the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like openspec_init, which might also involve creation, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., openspec_init or openspec_update). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools