Vibe Engineering MCP

module_run

Execute a module by ID through its registered harness, capturing output and telemetry for reproducible verification.

Instructions

Executes a module through its registered runnable harness, capturing full execution output and telemetry

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": {
      "moduleId": "<moduleId>"
    },
    "name": "module_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cwd`	No	Optional working directory
`taskId`	No	Optional task ID to associate observation with
`moduleId`	Yes	ID of the module to execute
`inputArgs`	No	Arguments or inputs to pass to the module harness
`customHarness`	No	Alternative harness command override

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Executes' implies running arbitrary code, which is potentially destructive, yet there is no disclosure of side effects, sandboxing, permission requirements, timeouts, or failure modes. 'Capturing full execution output and telemetry' hints at returns but nothing about safety or behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficiently front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is arguably under-specification rather than true economy.

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 five-parameter execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the single sentence is too thin. It omits behavioral and safety context an agent needs before executing a module, even though the schema covers the parameters.

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 five parameters (cwd, taskId, moduleId, inputArgs, customHarness). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (executes) and resource (module) and adds the distinguishing mechanism (registered runnable harness) plus the capture of output and telemetry. An agent can tell it runs something, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling module_observe.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related module_observe tool. The agent is left to infer when running a module is appropriate versus merely observing it.

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