Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenSpec MCP Server

OpenSpec MCP Server

by igor-olikh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

openspec_read_file

Read any OpenSpec artifact file (proposal, design, tasks, config) for a change or spec. Retrieve file contents directly when you need them.

Instructions

Read any OpenSpec artifact directly. Much faster than show — use this when you need file contents.

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>",
      "fileType": "<fileType>"
    },
    "name": "openspec_read_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesChange or spec name (e.g. "add-dark-mode")
typeNoItem type to disambiguate if a change and spec share the same name. If omitted, prefers changes.
fileTypeYesFile to read

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It conveys a non-mutating, direct read operation and a performance trait ('much faster than show'), but it does not disclose return formatting, error behavior, or whether content is returned verbatim.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. It efficiently conveys purpose and usage guidance without 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?

The tool is a simple file-read operation with a fully documented schema; the description plus schema provide enough context for invocation. It does not mention the output/return value, but for a read-file tool that is largely implied.

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%, with all three parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read any OpenSpec artifact directly.' It also distinguishes from the sibling tool `show` by noting it is 'much faster' and for file contents, making the purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly says 'use this when you need file contents' and contrasts with `show` by speed, giving clear context for selection. It does not fully explain when `show` would be preferred, but the directional guidance is sufficient.

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