mcp-vdd

Generate Tasks

vdd_tasks

Destructive

Break a validated plan into atomic test-first tasks with acceptance criteria and contracts, sized S/M/L and marked for parallel work, overwriting tasks.md.

Instructions

VDD Phase 6: Break the plan into atomic test-first tasks in vdd/specs//tasks.md — each references acceptance criteria (AC) and contracts, is sized S/M/L, and is marked [P] when parallelizable. Overwrites tasks.md. Requires plan.md; run after vdd_plan. To fetch the next uncompleted task from an existing tasks.md use vdd_get_next_task instead of re-running this. Parameter relationships: feature must match the value passed to vdd_plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`feature`	Yes	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 \".\")"

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.3Sep 24, 2026

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 \".\")"

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.2Sep 24, 2026

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"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Overwrites tasks.md', clearly disclosing what is destroyed. It also adds the plan.md prerequisite and structural output details. It could go further on overwrite precondition (e.g., whether prior content is lost irreversibly), but the safety profile is well covered.

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?

Front-loaded with phase identity and purpose, then prerequisite, alternative, and parameter relationship. Every sentence carries distinct actionable information with no filler.

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 not be explained. Phase position, prerequisite, destructive behavior, alternative sibling, and parameter linkage are all covered, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), and the description adds a genuine cross-tool relationship not in the schema: 'feature must match the value passed to vdd_plan'. That extra constraint meaningfully reduces invocation error beyond the parameter descriptions.

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?

The description names a specific verb and artifact: 'Break the plan into atomic test-first tasks in vdd/specs/<feature>/tasks.md', with concrete output characteristics (AC/contract references, S/M/L sizing, [P] markers). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings vdd_plan (prerequisite) and vdd_get_next_task (read alternative).

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Requires plan.md; run after vdd_plan') and an explicit alternative with condition ('To fetch the next uncompleted task from an existing tasks.md use vdd_get_next_task instead of re-running this'). Both routing decisions an agent needs are stated.

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

Deploy Server