Vibe Engineering MCP

checkpoint_create

Create a persistent checkpoint capturing git commit, verified capabilities, tasks, and failures for cold resumption.

Instructions

Creates a persistent checkpoint recording complete engineering state (git commit SHA, verified capabilities, tasks, failures, observations) for cold resumption

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": "checkpoint_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cwd`	No	Optional repository working directory
`summary`	No	Summary description of this checkpoint
`projectId`	Yes	ID of the project to checkpoint

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what the checkpoint records (git SHA, capabilities, tasks, failures, observations) and that it is persistent, but does not cover permissions, overwrite behavior, or side effects beyond creation.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core purpose and payload are immediately clear.

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?

For a create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what is created and why, but lacks guidance on invocation timing, return behavior, or relationship to checkpoint_load and project_resume. The schema handles parameter documentation, so the remaining gap is moderate.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Creates) and resource (persistent checkpoint), and explains the scope of what is recorded. It is clear against siblings like checkpoint_load by contrast, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives such as project_resume or checkpoint_load.

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?

The phrase 'for cold resumption' implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to create a checkpoint versus loading one or resuming a project. Alternatives are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer timing.

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