Un servidor de protocolo de contexto de modelo que implementa un flujo de trabajo de desarrollo estructurado para la codificación basada en LLM.
Este servidor MCP ayuda a los LLM a crear funciones de manera organizada, limpia y segura al proporcionar:
Un proceso estructurado de aclaración de características con preguntas guiadas
Generación del plan de implementación y del PRD
Desarrollo por fases con seguimiento de tareas
Seguimiento del progreso e informes de estado
Capacidades de almacenamiento y recuperación de documentos
Related MCP server: DevFlow MCP Server
Detalles de funciones, PRD y planes de implementación
Informes de progreso y seguimiento del estado
Detalles de fases y tareas
start_feature_clarification - Iniciar el proceso de aclaración de funciones
provide_clarification - Responder preguntas de aclaración sobre una característica
generate_prd - Generar un Documento de Requisitos del Producto y un plan de implementación
create_phase - Crea una fase de desarrollo para una función
add_task - Agregar tareas a una fase de desarrollo
update_phase_status - Actualizar el estado de una fase
update_task_status - Actualizar el estado de finalización de una tarea
get_next_phase_action - Obtenga orientación sobre qué hacer a continuación
get_document_path - Obtener la ruta de un documento generado
save_document - Guardar un documento en una ubicación específica
feature-planning : una plantilla de ayuda para planificar el desarrollo de funciones
El servidor incluye un sistema híbrido de almacenamiento de documentos que:
Guarda automáticamente los documentos generados (PRD, planes de implementación) en archivos
Mantiene una copia en memoria para un acceso rápido
Permite a los clientes recuperar rutas de documentos y guardarlos en ubicaciones personalizadas
Los documentos se almacenan en el directorio documents/{featureId}/ de forma predeterminada, con nombres de archivo basados en el tipo de documento:
documents/{featureId}/prd.md - Documento de requisitos del producto
documents/{featureId}/implementation-plan.md - Plan de implementación
Puede utilizar la herramienta save_document para guardar documentos en ubicaciones personalizadas:
{
"featureId": "feature-123",
"documentType": "prd",
"filePath": "/custom/path/feature-123-prd.md"
}Para obtener la ruta de un documento, utilice la herramienta get_document_path :
{
"featureId": "feature-123",
"documentType": "prd"
}Esto devuelve tanto la ruta como si el documento se ha guardado en el disco.
Instalar dependencias:
npm installConstruir el servidor:
npm run buildPara desarrollo con reconstrucción automática:
npm run watchPara utilizar con clientes MCP compatibles:
En MacOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json En Windows: %APPDATA%/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"vibe-coder-mcp": {
"command": "/path/to/vibe-coder-mcp/build/mcp-server.js"
}
}
}Dado que los servidores MCP se comunican a través de stdio, la depuración puede ser complicada. Recomendamos usar el Inspector MCP , disponible como script de paquete:
npm run inspectorEl Inspector proporcionará una URL para acceder a las herramientas de depuración en su navegador.
Este servidor se implementa utilizando la clase McpServer de alto nivel del Model Context Protocol TypeScript SDK, que simplifica el proceso de creación de servidores MCP al proporcionar una API limpia para definir recursos, herramientas y avisos.
import { McpServer, ResourceTemplate } from "@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/server/mcp.js";
import { StdioServerTransport } from "@modelcontextprotocol/sdk/server/stdio.js";
// Create an MCP server
const server = new McpServer({
name: "Vibe-Coder",
version: "0.3.0"
});
// Add a resource
server.resource(
"features-list",
"features://list",
async (uri) => ({ /* ... */ })
);
// Add a tool
server.tool(
"start_feature_clarification",
{ /* parameters schema */ },
async (params) => ({ /* ... */ })
);
// Add a prompt
server.prompt(
"feature-planning",
{ /* parameters schema */ },
(params) => ({ /* ... */ })
);
// Start the server
const transport = new StdioServerTransport();
await server.connect(transport);El servidor Vibe-Coder MCP está diseñado para guiar el proceso de desarrollo a través de los siguientes pasos:
Aclaración de funciones : comience por reunir los requisitos y comprender el propósito de la función, los usuarios objetivo y las limitaciones.
Documentación : Generar un PRD y un plan de implementación basado en los requisitos aclarados
Desarrollo por fases : Divida la implementación en fases lógicas con tareas claras
Seguimiento del progreso : supervisar la finalización de tareas y fases para guiar el desarrollo.
Finalización : verificar que se hayan implementado todos los requisitos y que la función esté lista para usarse
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| featureId | Yes | ||
| phaseId | Yes | ||
| description | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| featureId | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| description | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| featureId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| featureId | Yes | ||
| documentType | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| featureId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| featureId | Yes | ||
| question | Yes | ||
| answer | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| featureId | Yes | ||
| documentType | Yes | ||
| filePath | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| featureName | Yes | ||
| initialDescription | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| featureId | Yes | ||
| phaseId | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| featureId | Yes | ||
| phaseId | Yes | ||
| taskId | Yes | ||
| completed | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Tool has no description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Tool has no description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has no description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tool has no description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Tool has no description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
add_taskcreate_phasegenerate_prdget_document_pathget_next_phase_actionprovide_clarificationsave_documentstart_feature_clarificationupdate_phase_statusupdate_task_statusScored across 10 tools
The tools cover distinct aspects of a project management or coding workflow (e.g., task management, phase handling, document operations, and clarification processes), but some overlap exists—such as 'add_task' and 'update_task_status' being clearly related, and 'start_feature_clarification' and 'provide_clarification' potentially serving similar clarification purposes. Without descriptions, it's harder to fully disambiguate, but the tool names suggest reasonable separation for core functions.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or verb_adjective_noun pattern (e.g., 'add_task', 'create_phase', 'update_task_status'), which aids readability and predictability. However, there are minor deviations like 'generate_prd' (using an acronym) and 'get_next_phase_action' (which is slightly longer but still follows the pattern), keeping the naming mostly uniform across the set.
With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for a server focused on project or feature development workflows. This number allows coverage of key operations (e.g., task and phase management, document handling, clarification processes) without being overwhelming, fitting typical MCP server ranges and the inferred domain scope effectively.
Inferring a domain of project or feature development management, the tools cover creation and updates for tasks and phases, document operations, and clarification steps, but there are notable gaps. For example, there are no tools for deleting tasks/phases, listing or retrieving existing items (beyond 'get_document_path'), or handling broader project settings, which could limit agent workflows in a full lifecycle.
MCP server for generating rough-draft project plans from natural-language prompts.
Augments MCP Server - A comprehensive framework documentation provider for Claude Code
LLM Orchestration MCP Agent
Spec-driven development MCP server: 8 phases, bi-directional traceability, 7 quality gates.
