Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
spec-driver-mcp

spec-driver-mcp

by linanwanttodo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

write-spec-file

Create or update structured spec files for requirements, design, or tasks to support a spec-driven development workflow.

Instructions

Write content to one of the three spec files. Use this to create or update requirements.md, design.md, or tasks.md.

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "write-spec-file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYes
contentYesFull markdown content

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes write operation but does not clarify whether it overwrites or appends, nor does it mention permission needs or side effects. 'Full markdown content' hints at overwrite but not explicit.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no extra words. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema, so return value is not described. Tool is simple but lacks explanation of overwrite behavior or error handling. Adequate for a basic write tool but could be more complete with behavioral details.

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?

Two parameters with schema covering 50% (only 'content' has a description). Description reiterates the three files from the enum, adding minimal value beyond schema. Baseline score appropriate given parameter count and schema coverage.

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 'Write content to one of the three spec files', specifying the action (write), resource (spec files), and scope (three specific files). Distinguishes from sibling tools like read-spec-file and list-spec-files.

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 says 'Use this to create or update requirements.md, design.md, or tasks.md.', providing clear context for when to use. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' statement, but purpose is well-scoped.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools