Skip to main content
Glama
kingkongshot

Spec Workflow MCP

by kingkongshot
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool has a single, clearly defined purpose for managing a writing workflow, so an agent cannot misselect between multiple options.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'specs-workflow' follows a clear noun-based pattern, and there are no other tools to create inconsistency.

    Tool Count2/5

    A single tool is too few for the server's stated purpose of managing an 'intelligent writing workflow' with operations like initialization, checking, skipping, confirmation, and task completion. This suggests the tool is overloaded or the surface is underdeveloped, making it borderline inappropriate for the scope.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool description implies a complex workflow with multiple operations, but having only one tool likely means these are bundled into a single interface. This creates significant gaps in the surface, as agents cannot perform discrete actions independently, leading to potential dead ends or failures in automated workflows.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed 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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds some behavioral context by specifying the workflow domain and batch/single operation support, but doesn't elaborate on side effects, error conditions, or what 'intelligent' means operationally. With annotations covering basic safety, this earns a baseline score.

    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 efficiently structured in two sentences: first establishes the domain and purpose, second enumerates operations. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the core purpose.

    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?

    For a tool with 100% schema coverage and annotations, the description provides adequate context about the workflow domain and operation types. However, without an output schema and with multiple complex operations, it should ideally explain what results to expect from different actions. The description is minimally complete but lacks operational guidance.

    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 complete parameter documentation. The description mentions 'single or batch' operations which hints at the taskNumber parameter's array capability, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already explains. Baseline score applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

    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: 'Manage intelligent writing workflow for software project requirements, design, and task documents.' It specifies the resource (writing workflow) and the operations supported (initialization, checking, skipping, confirmation, task completion). However, without sibling tools, it cannot demonstrate differentiation from alternatives.

    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 lists the operations supported but provides no guidance on when to use each operation type, what prerequisites exist, or contextual factors that should influence selection. It merely enumerates capabilities without offering usage advice.

    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

specs-workflow-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

specs-workflow-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/kingkongshot/specs-workflow-mcp'

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