@vibemap.ai/mcp-server

vibemap_update_acceptance_criterion

Idempotent

Update acceptance criteria status (passed/failed) or content, reflecting whether your code satisfies the criterion.

Instructions

Update an acceptance criterion's status or content. Use status 'passed' when your code satisfies the criterion, 'failed' when it does not.

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": {
      "criterionId": "<criterionId>"
    },
    "name": "vibemap_update_acceptance_criterion"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`whenAction`	No
`criterionId`	Yes
`description`	No
`thenOutcome`	No
`givenCondition`	No
`scenarioCategory`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.5.2Jul 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it updates status or content, consistent with annotations. Does not disclose additional behaviors like side effects or required permissions.

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?

Two sentences, each providing useful information. No wasted words. Efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain required parameters, the effect of updating different fields, or what the tool returns.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description barely compensates. It mentions 'status or content' but 'content' is ambiguous and doesn't map to specific parameters. No parameter details are provided.

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?

Clearly states that it updates an acceptance criterion's status or content. Provides specific examples of status values. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like block_criterion or unblock_criterion, which also modify criteria.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides guidance on when to use 'passed' or 'failed' statuses. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives (e.g., when to use create or block instead).

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

Deploy Server