Skip to main content
Glama
paulasilvatech

Specky

by paulasilvatech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Related Servers

Alternatives to Specky

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Gigaspec

      oleksiitrembach
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An AI-native specification framework that enables deep requirements analysis and structured project planning through intelligent Q\&A workflows. The MCP server provides tools for project initialization, requirement analysis, and the generation of living documentation like development plans and architecture specs.
      4 npm
      Apache 2.0

    • speckitmcp

      jthom233
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server that integrates GitHub Spec-Kit with AI coding agents to manage Spec-Driven Development workflows, including specification authoring, planning, task generation, and consistency analysis.
      13
      1
      MIT

    • dev-loop-mcp

      soynog
      F
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server that automates the full software development lifecycle through an AI-driven TDD state machine. It handles everything from task decomposition and test-driven development to integration testing and automated pull request creation.
      4
      -
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 58 tools

    Disambiguation2/5

    Several tool pairs have unclear boundaries: sdd_write_spec vs sdd_turnkey_spec, sdd_generate_dockerfile vs sdd_setup_local_env, sdd_generate_docs vs sdd_generate_all_docs, and sdd_import_document vs sdd_batch_import all appear to produce overlapping artifacts. While descriptions add nuance, an agent would frequently need to read deeply to choose correctly, and mis-selection risk is high across the 58 tools.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All tool names share the sdd_ prefix and almost all follow snake_case verb_noun structure, making the surface feel predictable. A few names deviate (sdd_metrics, sdd_model_routing, sdd_turnkey_spec, sdd_context_status) and the verbs write/generate/setup are used somewhat interchangeably, so it is not a perfect 5.

    Tool Count2/5

    At 58 tools, this is far beyond the 15-tool well-scoped range and even beyond the 25-tool heavy threshold. Many tools could be consolidated (all the generate_docs variants, the docker/devcontainer generators, and the batch import variants), so the count feels bloated rather than purposeful.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool surface covers the entire SDD lifecycle: discovery, specification, design, tasks, analysis, verification, diagrams, documentation, test generation, environment setup, and export integrations. It also includes backup/restore, RBAC, audit verification, and metrics, so there are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose.

    Maintenance

    ActivitySlowing
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources