@vibemap.ai/mcp-server

vibemap_get_atomic_blueprint

Read-only

Retrieve a code-focused atomic blueprint of a VibeMap project, with entity relationships and state machines, optimized for AI code generation.

Instructions

Retrieve a code-shaped atomic blueprint of a VibeMap project — relationships hydrated, Kanban metadata stripped, with synthesized interactions and entity state machines. Designed for LLM coders building the application end-to-end. Prefer this over vibemap_get_project_context when generating code; the blueprint omits PM narrative and process metadata to maximise signal-per-token.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "vibemap_get_atomic_blueprint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	The VibeMap project ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.5.2Jul 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing what is stripped (Kanban metadata, PM narrative) and what is included, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences with clear front-loading: first sentence states action and result, second adds detail, third gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the single parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the key purpose, differentiation, and usage guidance. It could describe the return format but is sufficient for the intended use case.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter (projectId) described as 'The VibeMap project ID'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema's description, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a 'code-shaped atomic blueprint' with specific elements (relationships, synthesized interactions, entity state machines) and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool vibemap_get_project_context.

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?

The description explicitly advises to prefer this tool over vibemap_get_project_context when generating code, and explains it omits PM narrative/process metadata for better signal-per-token, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server