Skip to main content
Glama
kevinlin

Spec-driven Development MCP Server

by kevinlin

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

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the spec_coding_goal_confirmed tool logic: logs confirmation, returns a markdown progress update instructing to proceed to requirements_start.
    export async function goalConfirmed(params: GoalConfirmedParams): Promise<string> {
      const { session_id, feature_name, goal_summary } = params;
      console.error(`[MCP] Goal confirmed for session ${session_id} with feature: ${feature_name}`);
      
      return `# ✅ Feature Goal Confirmed
    
    ## Confirmed Feature Goal:
    - **Feature Name**: \`${feature_name}\`
    - **Feature Description**: ${goal_summary}
    - **Project Directory**: \`docs/specs/${feature_name}/\`
    
    ---
    
    ## Next Stage: Requirements Gathering (2/5)
    
    ### Workflow Progress:
    - [x] 1. **Goal Collection** ✅
    - [ ] 2. **Requirements Gathering** ← Next Stage
    - [ ] 3. Design Documentation
    - [ ] 4. Task Planning
    - [ ] 5. Task Execution
    
    Now please call \`spec_coding_requirements_start\` to begin detailed requirements gathering.
    
    **Session Information**:
    - Session ID: \`${session_id}\`
    - Feature Name: \`${feature_name}\``;
    }
  • TypeScript interface defining the input parameters for the goalConfirmed handler, matching the tool's inputSchema.
    export interface GoalConfirmedParams {
      session_id: string;
      feature_name: string;
      goal_summary: string;
    }
  • src/server.ts:38-59 (registration)
    Tool registration definition including name, description, and inputSchema used in the MCP server's listTools response.
    {
      name: 'spec_coding_goal_confirmed',
      description: 'Confirm the completion of the feature goal, set the feature_name, and proceed to the requirements collection phase',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          session_id: { 
            type: 'string', 
            description: 'Session identifier' 
          },
          feature_name: { 
            type: 'string', 
            description: 'Feature name generated based on the goal (e.g., user-auth)' 
          },
          goal_summary: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Brief description of the feature goal'
          }
        },
        required: ['session_id', 'feature_name', 'goal_summary']
      }
    },
  • Switch case in the CallToolRequestSchema handler that dispatches the tool call to the goalConfirmed implementation.
    case 'spec_coding_goal_confirmed':
      result = await goalConfirmed(args as any);
      break;
  • JSON Schema for input validation of the spec_coding_goal_confirmed tool, registered with the MCP server.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        session_id: { 
          type: 'string', 
          description: 'Session identifier' 
        },
        feature_name: { 
          type: 'string', 
          description: 'Feature name generated based on the goal (e.g., user-auth)' 
        },
        goal_summary: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Brief description of the feature goal'
        }
      },
      required: ['session_id', 'feature_name', 'goal_summary']
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions confirming completion and proceeding to a new phase, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what happens to session state, whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, error conditions, or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that likely updates workflow state.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads key actions (confirm, set, proceed). It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the three actions more clearly.

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's likely role in a multi-phase workflow with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'confirming completion' means in practice, what the tool returns, or how it interacts with sibling tools. More context is needed for an agent to use it effectively in this complex environment.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'set the feature_name' and referencing the goal, but doesn't provide additional context like parameter relationships or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool's purpose as confirming completion of a feature goal, setting a feature name, and proceeding to requirements collection. This is clear but somewhat vague about what 'confirming completion' entails and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like spec_coding_requirements_confirmed or spec_coding_design_confirmed that handle other phases.

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 implies usage at the end of a goal-setting phase before requirements collection, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spec_coding_workflow_start or other phase-specific tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/kevinlin/spec-coding-mcp'

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