spec-driver-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

init-spec

Creates a structured development workspace with requirements, design, and task files to guide spec-driven workflow. Call first when starting a new feature or bugfix.

Instructions

Initialize a spec-driven development workspace for the current project. Creates a .spec/ directory that will hold three files:

requirements.md: User stories, acceptance criteria (EARS format)
design.md: Architecture, diagrams, implementation approach
tasks.md: Trackable checkbox tasks
hooks/: Event-driven automation rules

Call this FIRST when user expresses intent to build, plan, design, analyze, or refactor.

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": {
      "projectName": "<projectName>"
    },
    "name": "init-spec"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`projectName`	Yes	Project or feature name
`specType`	No	Type of spec (default: feature)
`workflowType`	No	Workflow variant (default: requirements-first)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses creation of .spec/ directory and files, but does not mention idempotency, potential side effects, or what happens if called multiple times.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is structured but somewhat verbose with file list. Could be more concise by noting file structure is standard and documented elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, description adequately informs about created files and directory structure. Lacks details on success indicators or return value.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds no further meaning beyond schema. All parameters are already well-described in input schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool initializes a spec-driven workspace for the current project. It lists specific files and directories created, distinguishing it from siblings by indicating it should be called first when building, planning, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states 'Call this FIRST when user expresses intent to build, plan, design, analyze, or refactor.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server