Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Spec-driven Development MCP Server

Spec-driven Development MCP Server

by kevinlin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

spec_coding_goal_confirmed

Confirm feature goal completion and transition to requirements collection phase in spec-driven development workflows.

Instructions

Confirm the completion of the feature goal, set the feature_name, and proceed to the requirements collection phase

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "feature_name": "<feature_name>",
      "goal_summary": "<goal_summary>"
    },
    "name": "spec_coding_goal_confirmed"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYesSession identifier
feature_nameYesFeature name generated based on the goal (e.g., user-auth)
goal_summaryYesBrief description of the feature goal

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions state transitions ('proceed to the requirements collection phase') but doesn't disclose whether this tool triggers side effects, requires specific permissions, affects session state, or has error conditions. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and front-loads the key actions (confirm, set, proceed). Every element serves a purpose.

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 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'confirmation' entails, what happens if confirmation fails, what the tool returns, or how it interacts with the broader workflow system. The description assumes context that isn't documented.

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%, providing good parameter documentation. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (session_id, feature_name, goal_summary). It mentions 'set the feature_name' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or usage.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Confirm the completion', 'set', 'proceed to') and identifies the resource ('feature goal'). It distinguishes from some siblings by focusing on goal confirmation rather than design or requirements phases, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all workflow-related tools.

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 usage context by mentioning 'proceed to the requirements collection phase', suggesting this tool is used after goal completion and before requirements gathering. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions compared to other sibling tools like spec_coding_workflow_start.

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