Vibe Engineering MCP

architecture_validate

Validates project architecture DAGs for consistency, cycle prevention, and interface completeness, enabling AI workers to build against reliable contracts.

Instructions

Validates architecture DAG consistency, cycle prevention, and interface completeness

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": "architecture_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	ID of the project to validate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says what is validated but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it mutates state, what permissions are needed, how failures are reported, or what the return value looks like. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently lists the core validation aspects without redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given a simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description identifies what is validated but omits behavioral context an agent may need, such as read-only status, success/failure semantics, or how the validation result is returned. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter 'projectId' is documented in the schema as 'ID of the project to validate.' The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Validates') and resource ('architecture DAG') along with the exact validation dimensions: consistency, cycle prevention, and interface completeness. This is much clearer than a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools like architecture_generate or contract_verify.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: validate an architecture DAG. However, the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as when to use contract_verify or integration_verify instead.

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