Skip to main content
Glama
simonmak-ascent

mcp-vdd

by simonmak-ascent
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Audit Tactics

vdd_tactics
Destructive

Audit your codebase to produce vdd/tactics.md with technical debt, gap analysis, MoSCoW-prioritized actions, dependencies, and infrastructure needs. Requires vdd/strategy.md.

Instructions

VDD Phase 3: Audit the existing codebase into vdd/tactics.md — repo audit, technical-debt assessment, gap analysis, MoSCoW-prioritized action items (A-001, A-002, …), dependency map, and infrastructure requirements. Overwrites vdd/tactics.md. Requires vdd/strategy.md; run after vdd_strategize and before vdd_specify. Needs a filesystem-capable host to scan the repo, so check with vdd_detect_environment first if the host may lack one. Parameter relationships: projectRoot must match the root used by vdd_init, vdd_vision, and vdd_strategize; requires vdd/strategy.md to exist.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectRootNoProject 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_sdtYesStrategy-and-Tactic instructions for the next step
errorNoError message when the phase fails
_phaseYesVDD phase that produced this result
outputNoAdditional structured phase output
successYesWhether the phase completed successfully
artifactNoPrimary artifact produced or returned
gateResultNoQuality-gate result, when the phase runs a gate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.9.0
    • 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 \".\")"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectRoot / description
      Previous value: -"Path to project root directory"New value: +"Project root: directory that constitution.md and the vdd/ folder are written to and resolved against (default \".\")"
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.2
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "_phase": {
+      "description": "VDD phase that produced this result",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "_sdt": {
+      "description": "Strategy-and-Tactic instructions for the next step",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "artifact": {
+      "description": "Primary artifact produced or returned",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Error message when the phase fails",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "gateResult": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Quality-gate result, when the phase runs a gate",
+      "properties": {
+        "checks": {
+          "description": "Number of checks run",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "passed": {
+          "description": "Whether the quality gate passed",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "total": {
+          "description": "Total number of checks",
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "passed",
+        "checks",
+        "total"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "output": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "Additional structured phase output",
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "description": "Whether the phase completed successfully",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success",
+    "_phase",
+    "_sdt"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description goes further by naming exactly what is destroyed ('Overwrites vdd/tactics.md') and what capability the host needs (filesystem access to scan the repo). It also names the required input file, giving the agent the full operational picture 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and output artifact before prerequisites and caveats, so an agent can stop reading early if it only needs the gist. The final 'Parameter relationships' sentence is slightly long and partly restates the earlier requirement that vdd/strategy.md must exist, but the density is justified by a multi-step pipeline tool.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers sequencing, prerequisites, overwrite behavior, host capability, and the cross-phase projectRoot invariant. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this phase correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single documented parameter, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real cross-tool semantics: projectRoot 'must match the root used by vdd_init, vdd_vision, and vdd_strategize'. That consistency constraint is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 and resource ('Audit the existing codebase into vdd/tactics.md') plus the concrete artifact contents (repo audit, debt assessment, gap analysis, MoSCoW items, dependency map). Phase labeling ('VDD Phase 3') and the output filename distinguish it cleanly from siblings like vdd_specify and vdd_plan.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'run after vdd_strategize and before vdd_specify', requires vdd/strategy.md, and names vdd_detect_environment as the check to run first if the host may lack filesystem access. This covers when to use it, prerequisites, and a sibling alternative for the environment question.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools