Spec Kit UI MCP

by imohuan

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.5
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct role in the workflow: gather collects requirements, configure opens a UI for details, analyze assesses completeness, build generates commands, learn_speckit provides education, and preview displays results. There is no meaningful overlap between any two tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names are all lowercase imperative verbs, mostly single-word (gather, configure, analyze, build, preview). learn_speckit deviates from the single-word convention but still follows the verb_noun pattern, making the set largely predictable.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools is a well-scoped number for the workflow, covering each essential step without redundancy. The count comfortably falls within the ideal 3–15 range and each tool contributes meaningfully.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full lifecycle from requirement gathering to configuration, analysis, building, and previewing. learn_speckit fills an educational gap, and there are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.
Average 3.9/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description itself must disclose behavior. It mentions the output (7 commands) and tech stack (Vue 3 + TypeScript) but omits side effects, file creation, permissions, return format, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a build operation.
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 two sentences. The first states the core action and output; the second provides tech stack and quality attributes. It is concise and front-loaded without unnecessary filler.
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 only one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description gives a high-level purpose and input but lacks detail on return values, filesystem effects, or failure conditions. For a build tool, this incomplete context leaves the agent uncertain about post-invocation outcomes.
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 schema has 100% coverage with a single required parameter described as '需求总结 JSON 文件路径'. The description's reference to '完整的需求总结' aligns with the parameter but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the tool builds the Spec Kit 7 commands (listing them explicitly) based on a requirements summary. The verb 'build' and resource 'Spec Kit 7 commands' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze or preview.
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 phrase '基于完整的需求总结' implies a prerequisite (a complete requirements summary), giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use this tool or alternatives, and sibling tools are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: starting a local web server, displaying a form, and waiting for user submission. However, it omits what happens after submission (e.g., saving to the file or returning data) and potential side effects.
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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and then provide supporting details, with no redundant information.
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?
The description adequately describes the interactive workflow, but because there's no output schema, it should explain post-submit behavior. The agent is left uncertain about the return value or file modification, and no annotation helps.
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 coverage is 100% since configFilePath is described as a path to a JSON file. The description reinforces this by saying it receives the path, but adds no new semantic details beyond connecting it to the flow.
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 a specific action: receiving a config file path and launching a visual UI for the user to fill in requirement details. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'gather' or 'preview' by describing a unique interactive workflow.
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 implies usage context: when you have a config file and want user input via a browser form. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'gather' or 'analyze'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a prompt rather than final output, and that it supports multi-round collection. However, it has a slight internal ambiguity between 'generates configuration' and 'returns a prompt', and it doesn't mention side effects or statelessness.
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?
Three sentences, each providing distinct information: purpose, workflow, and multi-round capability. No redundant content, and the description is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 explains the tool's role in the workflow (gather -> configure) and the return type (prompt). The schema covers all parameters. It lacks an output schema, but the description is sufficient for a tool of this complexity within its 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning multi-round support, which is already implied by the sessionId and userResponse parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 applies.
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 tool collects user project requirements and generates structured question configuration. It explicitly mentions returning a prompt for AI to generate JSON and call the configure tool, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like configure, analyze, and build.
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?
The description implies this is the first step in a workflow where gather collects requirements, then configure is called for user input. It provides clear context for when to use gather (to collect requirements) but doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives beyond the configure step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It mentions the tool displays results in a webpage and is intended for viewing/copying, implying a non-destructive preview. However, it does not discuss any requirements, potential errors, or limitations beyond this basic behavior.
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, front-loaded with the core function and followed by usage context. Every sentence contributes meaning with no wasted words or redundancies.
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?
Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and timing. It could mention prerequisites or error conditions, but the simple nature of a preview tool makes this sufficient.
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 has 100% coverage for the only parameter (commandsFilePath), and the description essentially repeats the schema's description. It adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 receives a command results file path and previews the built 7 Spec Kit commands in a webpage. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like build (which builds) and analyze, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description explicitly states '用于在 build 构建命令后' (use after the build command), providing clear contextual guidance for when to invoke this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing context is sufficiently clear for a simple preview tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'opens an interactive web page,' which is the primary side effect. However, it does not clarify whether this modifies any files, requires network access, or has other side effects. For a non-destructive tutorial tool, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.
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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and followed by the mechanism. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity—no parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations—the description provides all necessary context. It states what the tool does, how it does it, and the scope of content covered. The interaction with sibling tools is clear from the naming and purpose, making the description 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?
The input schema has a single placeholder parameter '_' with description '无需参数' (no parameters needed). Since the description does not address parameters, the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The tool effectively takes no parameters, so no additional context is required or provided.
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 tool's function: to quickly understand all Spec Kit commands and the development process. It specifies the action ('opens an interactive web page') and the resource (Spec Kit commands and best practices). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gather, configure, analyze, build, and preview, which are operational rather than educational.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: when needing a quick overview of the entire Spec Kit command set and workflow. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clearly differentiated from the operational sibling tools. For a simple learning tool, this is sufficient context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the core decision logic (complete vs. incomplete) and the resulting actions (generate summary and instruct build, or instruct to continue gathering), which is useful context. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as whether it writes to files, whether it uses the provided file path beyond reading, or whether the analysis persists any state. Still, the described branching behavior is a significant transparency step beyond a generic 'analyze' label.
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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the conditional behavior in an efficient second sentence. There is no redundancy or filler; every clause contributes meaningful guidance for using the tool.
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?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity with branching logic, the description explains the decision outcomes and references sibling tools (gather, build) appropriately. It does not detail the exact output format or how the 'instruct build command' is delivered, but the description is reasonably complete for an analysis tool in a workflow context. The presence of sibling tools provides additional contextual signals, and the description aligns well with that.
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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters (projectIdea, userAnswers, userResponseFilePath) beyond what the schema already states. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description does not go beyond that baseline.
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 tool's purpose: analyze collected requirements to judge completeness and clarity. It further specifies branching actions, distinguishing it from siblings like gather (collection), build (construction), and preview (viewing). The verb 'analyze' plus resource '需求信息' makes it specific and actionable.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: after requirements have been collected and before proceeding to build. It provides clear context by stating that if requirements are clear, it instructs building, otherwise it directs to continue collecting (referencing the gather sibling). However, it does not explicitly state scenarios where this tool should not be used or formalize when/where it fits in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![spec-kit-ui-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/imohuan/spec-kit-ui-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/imohuan/spec-kit-ui-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![spec-kit-ui-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/imohuan/spec-kit-ui-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/imohuan/spec-kit-ui-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/imohuan/spec-kit-ui-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server