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.

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 ".")	.

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 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the 'Never modifies files' line mostly reinforces structured data. The description does add real behavioral context, however: the output is a structured matrix/metrics object rather than prose, and it discloses the scope/feature parameter dependency.

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 scope semantics, then routing and parameter relationships, with no filler sentences. It is fairly dense in a single block, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 not be explained, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers both scopes, routing to siblings, and cross-parameter dependencies. Nothing required 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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by stating the parameter relationships explicitly: scope="feature" requires feature, while the default project scope ignores it, and projectRoot must match the root used by earlier phases. That is genuine semantic value the schema's per-field text does not fully spell out.

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 (inspect) and resource (current project) and immediately enumerates the two views scope selects between, including exactly what each returns (traceability matrix vs per-feature spec metrics). An agent can distinguish this from the other vdd_* siblings purely from the description.

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: use vdd_validate for release-readiness validation with gates and vdd_specify to author a spec, implying this tool is for read-only inspection/status. That is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use pairing with named alternatives.

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.