Vision Driven Design (VDD) MCP Server

Inspect Project

vdd_inspect

Read-onlyIdempotent

VDD Cross-phase: Read-only inspection of the current project in one call — scope selects the view. scope="project" (default) returns the bidirectional V→S→T→SP→PL→TK traceability matrix across all vdd/ artifacts; scope="feature" returns per-feature spec metrics (acceptance-criteria count, unresolved [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers, [e.g.] placeholder density, and whether plan.md/tasks.md exist). Never modifies files. Pass feature for the feature scope; for release-readiness validation with gates use vdd_validate, and to author a spec use vdd_specify. Output is a structured matrix/metrics object, not prose. Parameter relationships: scope="feature" requires feature, while scope="project" (the default) ignores it; projectRoot must match the root used by earlier phases. On the hosted (stateless) endpoint, pass artifactFiles (path→content for the vdd/ artifacts) so the tool computes the real matrix/metrics; without it the tool returns a delegation envelope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No	Inspect scope: "project" (default) returns the traceability matrix; "feature" returns per-feature spec metrics (requires feature)
`feature`	No	Feature name: the vdd/specs/<feature>/ directory, kebab-case (e.g., "user-auth"); must reference a directory created earlier by vdd_specify
`projectRoot`	No	Project root: directory that constitution.md and the vdd/ folder are written to and resolved against. Relative paths resolve from the current working directory; keep the same value across every phase (default ".")	.
`artifactFiles`	No	Map of vdd/-relative artifact path → full file text, for the hosted (stateless) endpoint, which cannot read the caller filesystem; without it the tool returns a delegation envelope

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Error message when the phase fails
`_phase`	No	VDD phase that produced this result
`output`	No	Additional structured phase output
`success`	Yes	Whether the phase completed successfully
`artifact`	No	Primary artifact produced or returned
`gateResult`	No	Quality-gate result, when the phase runs a gate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, it discloses that files are never modified, that the hosted stateless endpoint requires artifactFiles and otherwise returns a delegation envelope, and that projectRoot must stay consistent across phases. These are non-obvious operational behaviors not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the scope distinction, then alternatives, then parameter relationships. It is dense and long, and the output-format sentence is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but every sentence carries usable routing or constraint information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no prose explanation, and the description still covers the two scopes, sibling routing, parameter dependencies, and the stateless-endpoint fallback. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine cross-parameter semantics the schema lacks: scope='feature' requires feature while scope='project' ignores it, and projectRoot must match earlier phases. It also explains the artifactFiles path→content purpose, though it stops short of format specifics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read-only inspection of the current project') and immediately disambiguates the two modes via the scope enum, spelling out exactly what each returns. An agent can distinguish it from vdd_validate and vdd_specify without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: 'for release-readiness validation with gates use vdd_validate, and to author a spec use vdd_specify,' and clarifies when to pass scope='feature' vs the default. Both the alternative tools and the selecting conditions are named.

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

All Vision Driven Design (VDD) MCP Server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

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

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.