mcp-vdd

Inspect Project

vdd_inspect

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect project or feature scope in one call: read-only traceability matrix or per-feature spec metrics without modifying files.

Instructions

VDD Cross-phase: Read-only inspection of the current project in one call — scope selects the view. scope="project" (default) returns the bidirectional V→S→T→SP→PL→TK traceability matrix across all vdd/ artifacts; scope="feature" returns per-feature spec metrics (acceptance-criteria count, unresolved [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers, [e.g.] placeholder density, and whether plan.md/tasks.md exist). Never modifies files. Pass feature for the feature scope; for release-readiness validation with gates use vdd_validate, and to author a spec use vdd_specify. Output is a structured matrix/metrics object, not prose. Parameter relationships: scope="feature" requires feature, while scope="project" (the default) ignores it; projectRoot must match the root used by earlier phases.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No	Inspect scope: "project" (default) returns the traceability matrix; "feature" returns per-feature spec metrics (requires feature)
`feature`	No	Feature name: the vdd/specs/<feature>/ directory, kebab-case (e.g., "user-auth"); must reference a directory created earlier by vdd_specify
`projectRoot`	No	Project root: directory that constitution.md and the vdd/ folder are written to and resolved against. Relative paths resolve from the current working directory; keep the same value across every phase (default ".")	.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_sdt`	Yes	Strategy-and-Tactic instructions for the next step
`error`	No	Error message when the phase fails
`_phase`	Yes	VDD phase that produced this result
`output`	No	Additional structured phase output
`success`	Yes	Whether the phase completed successfully
`artifact`	No	Primary artifact produced or returned
`gateResult`	No	Quality-gate result, when the phase runs a gate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.9.0Oct 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / feature / description

Previous value: -"Feature name (spec directory name)"New value: +"Feature name: the vdd/specs/<feature>/ directory, kebab-case (e.g., \"user-auth\"); must reference a directory created earlier by vdd_specify"

changedInput schema / properties / projectRoot / description

Previous value: -"Project root: directory that constitution.md and the vdd/ folder are written to and resolved against (default \".\")"New value: +"Project root: directory that constitution.md and the vdd/ folder are written to and resolved against. Relative paths resolve from the current working directory; keep the same value across every phase (default \".\")"

Addedv1.8.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces 'Never modifies files' and adds meaningful context that output is a structured object 'not prose'. It stops short of describing pagination or volume/rate behavior, so it adds value but isn't exhaustive beyond the annotations.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the primary purpose and scope mechanics come first, then siblings and parameter relationships. Every sentence carries routing or behavioral information, though the single long paragraph could be broken up for faster scanning.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists so return values needn't be enumerated, and the description still signals the output shape. Combined with scope semantics, sibling routing, and parameter relationships, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine cross-parameter meaning: scope="feature" requires feature while scope="project" ignores it, and projectRoot must match the root used by earlier phases. This relational guidance goes beyond the per-parameter schema text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read-only inspection of the current project') and precisely what the two scope modes return (traceability matrix vs per-feature spec metrics). It explicitly names sibling tools (vdd_validate, vdd_specify) and distinguishes itself from them.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: scope="project" (default) for the matrix, scope="feature" for metrics, plus named alternatives for adjacent tasks ('for release-readiness validation use vdd_validate, and to author a spec use vdd_specify'). Nothing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server