Skip to main content
Glama
kevinlin

Spec-driven Development MCP Server

by kevinlin

spec_coding_tasks_confirmed

Confirm task planning completion to transition from specification to code implementation in spec-driven development workflows.

Instructions

Confirm the completion of task planning and proceed to the execution phase

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYesSession identifier
feature_nameYesFeature name

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that executes the 'spec_coding_tasks_confirmed' tool. It logs confirmation and returns a markdown message indicating task planning completion and directing to the next phase.
    export async function tasksConfirmed(
      params: TasksConfirmedParams
    ): Promise<string> {
      const { session_id, feature_name } = params;
      console.error(`[MCP] Tasks confirmed for feature: ${feature_name}`);
      
      return `# βœ… Task Planning Completed
    
    ## Generated Tasks Document:
    πŸ“„ "docs/specs/${feature_name}/tasks.md"
    
    The tasks document contains a detailed list of development tasks, each with clear descriptions, acceptance criteria, and execution order.
    
    ---
    
    ## Next Stage: Task Execution (5/5)
    
    ### Workflow Progress:
    - [x] 1. Goal Collection βœ…
    - [x] 2. Requirements Gathering βœ…
    - [x] 3. Design Document βœ…
    - [x] 4. **Task Planning** βœ…
    - [ ] 5. **Task Execution** ← Final Stage
    
    Now please call \`spec_coding_execute_start\` to begin the task execution stage.
    
    **Session Information**:
    - Session ID: \`${session_id}\`
    - Feature Name: \`${feature_name}\`
    - Requirements: βœ… Completed
    - Design: βœ… Completed
    - Tasks: βœ… Completed`;
    }
  • The tool definition including name, description, and input schema used for tool listing and validation.
    {
      name: 'spec_coding_tasks_confirmed',
      description: 'Confirm the completion of task planning and proceed to the execution phase',
      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:235-237 (registration)
    The switch case that registers and dispatches calls to the tasksConfirmed handler function.
    case 'spec_coding_tasks_confirmed':
      result = await tasksConfirmed(args as any);
      break;
  • TypeScript interface defining the input parameters for the handler, matching the JSON schema.
    export interface TasksConfirmedParams {
      session_id: string;
      feature_name: string;
    }
  • src/server.ts:13-13 (registration)
    Import statement registering the handler function into the server module.
    import { tasksConfirmed } from './tools/tasks_confirmed.js';
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions confirming completion and proceeding to execution, but lacks details on what this entailsβ€”e.g., whether it triggers side effects, requires specific permissions, or changes system state. This leaves key behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that seems to involve workflow transitions.

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 directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured by including brief context. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately concise for its content.

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 complexity of a workflow transition tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'confirming completion' entails, what happens after proceeding to execution, or any potential outcomes. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's role and effects within the sibling toolset.

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 additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how these parameters relate to the confirmation process. Since schema coverage is high, 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 action ('Confirm the completion of task planning and proceed to the execution phase'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what resource or system this applies to, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'spec_coding_tasks_start' or 'spec_coding_execute_start', leaving the exact purpose ambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for transitioning from planning to execution, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or how it relates to siblings such as 'spec_coding_design_confirmed' or 'spec_coding_goal_confirmed', offering minimal usage context.

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