Skip to main content
Glama
putervision

state-memory-mcp

by putervision
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

manage_specs

Author, ingest, export, and verify Spec-Driven Development specs against acceptance criteria; scaffold templates, run compliance checks, and decompose features into subtasks.

Instructions

Spec-Driven Development (SDD) lifecycle and workflow template generation (actions: scaffold, ingest, export, compliance, verify, decompose_feature, template). Use manage_specs instead of manage_nodes when authoring, ingesting, or verifying formal SDD specifications against acceptance criteria.

Returns specification AST, compliance matrix, verification verdict, or decomposed feature plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoName of template or feature.
titleNoTitle of feature spec or template.
actionYesThe specification or template action to execute: scaffold, ingest, export, compliance, verify, decompose_feature, template.
formatNoFormat of spec file.
statusNoVerification status for verify.
projectNoTarget project name or slug.
spec_idNoSpec node ID for export.
subtasksNoArray of subtask titles for decompose_feature.
templateNoTemplate type for template action.
file_pathNoFile path of PRD or Gherkin feature for ingest.
descriptionNoFeature description for decompose_feature.
criterion_idNoAcceptance criterion node ID for verify.
observation_idNoOptional observation node ID containing test proof.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / description
      Previous value: -"The specification or template action to execute."New value: +"The specification or template action to execute: scaffold, ingest, export, compliance, verify, decompose_feature, template."
    • addedInput schema / properties / action / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "scaffold",
+  "ingest",
+  "export",
+  "compliance",
+  "verify",
+  "decompose_feature",
+  "template"
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.2.1
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -true
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "action"
+]
  3. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive mutation surface. The description adds useful return-shape context (AST, compliance matrix, verdict, feature plan), which matters since there is no output schema. However it discloses nothing about per-action side effects, permissions, or whether operations are reversible, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences plus a return sentence, no filler. The action list is repeated in the description, the action enum, and the action property description, which is mild redundancy, but each sentence otherwise earns its place.

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 7 actions and 13 parameters, the description covers the routing question and the return types, and the schema covers parameters fully. What is missing is any per-action contextual detail, for example which parameters apply to ingest versus verify, leaving the agent to infer mappings from parameter names alone.

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%, so each of the 13 parameters is already documented in the schema, including the action enum. The description only restates the action list and return types, adding no per-parameter meaning or per-action parameter mapping. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 names a specific domain (Spec-Driven Development) and enumerates the actions the tool performs, so the agent understands it handles SDD spec authoring, ingestion, and verification plus template generation. It distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, manage_nodes, which is strong. It stops short of 5 because the tool is a broad multi-action bundle and the description never sharpens what each action's purpose is.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: use manage_specs instead of manage_nodes when authoring, ingesting, or verifying formal SDD specifications against acceptance criteria. That is a clear when-to-use with a named alternative. It lacks per-action selection guidance (when to use verify vs compliance vs decompose_feature), which keeps it from a 5.

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