Skip to main content
Glama
kevinlin

Spec-driven Development MCP Server

by kevinlin

spec_coding_requirements_start

Initiate requirements collection for software features by providing structured guidance to gather specifications before development begins.

Instructions

Start the requirements collection phase and provide guidance for requirements gathering

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYesSession identifier
feature_nameYesFeature name

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the tool logic: logs the start, reads the 'gen-requirement.md' template using session and feature data, and returns a formatted markdown response with workflow progress and instructions for requirements gathering.
    export async function requirementsStart(
      params: RequirementsStartParams
    ): Promise<string> {
      const { session_id, feature_name } = params;
      console.error(`[MCP] Starting requirements collection for feature: ${feature_name}`);
      
      // Use gen-requirement.md template
      const template = await readTemplate('gen-requirement.md', {
        feature_name,
        session_id
      });
      
      return `# 📋 Requirements Gathering Stage (2/5)
    
    ## Feature: ${feature_name}
    
    ### Workflow Progress:
    - [x] 1. Goal Collection ✅
    - [x] 2. **Requirements Gathering** ← Current Stage
    - [ ] 3. Design Documentation
    - [ ] 4. Task Planning
    - [ ] 5. Task Execution
    
    ---
    
    ${template}
    
    ---
    
    **Important**:
    - Please generate requirements document according to the above guidelines
    - **Only when you explicitly confirm the requirements are complete can you call** \`spec_coding_requirements_confirmed\` tool
    - **Never** call the next stage tool before the user **explicitly confirms the requirements**
    
    **Session Information**:
    - Session ID: \`${session_id}\`
    - Feature Name: \`${feature_name}\``;
    }
  • JSON schema defining the input parameters for the 'spec_coding_requirements_start' tool, used for validation in the MCP server.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        session_id: { 
          type: 'string', 
          description: 'Session identifier' 
        },
        feature_name: { 
          type: 'string', 
          description: 'Feature name' 
        }
      },
      required: ['session_id', 'feature_name']
    }
  • src/server.ts:60-77 (registration)
    Tool registration in the 'tools' array, defining name, description, and input schema for the ListToolsRequest handler.
    {
      name: 'spec_coding_requirements_start',
      description: 'Start the requirements collection phase and provide guidance for requirements gathering',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          session_id: { 
            type: 'string', 
            description: 'Session identifier' 
          },
          feature_name: { 
            type: 'string', 
            description: 'Feature name' 
          }
        },
        required: ['session_id', 'feature_name']
      }
    },
  • src/server.ts:215-217 (registration)
    Switch case in the CallToolRequest handler that routes the tool call to the requirementsStart implementation.
    case 'spec_coding_requirements_start':
      result = await requirementsStart(args as any);
      break;
  • TypeScript type definition for the input parameters of the handler function.
    export interface RequirementsStartParams {
      session_id: string;
      feature_name: string;
    }
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 'start' and 'provide guidance', implying an initiating action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what 'guidance' entails (e.g., textual output, structured data), or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.

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 states the core action and outcome without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details. There's no waste, but it might benefit from slightly more structure to enhance clarity.

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 complexity (initiating a phase with guidance), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'guidance' means, the format of output, or how this fits into the broader workflow with siblings. For a tool that likely returns instructional content, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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% description coverage, with parameters 'session_id' and 'feature_name' clearly documented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how these parameters influence the requirements collection or guidance. Given high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Start[s] the requirements collection phase and provide[s] guidance for requirements gathering', which indicates a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions 'requirements collection phase' and 'requirements gathering', but doesn't clarify what resource or system this applies to, nor how it distinguishes from siblings like 'spec_coding_design_start' or 'spec_coding_tasks_start'. The purpose is vague rather than tautological.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when in a workflow), or exclusions. With siblings like 'spec_coding_requirements_confirmed' and 'spec_coding_design_start', there's no indication of sequencing or differentiation, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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-driven-dev-mcp'

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