Skip to main content
Glama
simonmak-ascent

mcp-vdd

by simonmak-ascent
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Expand Vision

vdd_vision
Destructive

Expands a freeform vision statement into a structured vdd/vision.md with impact model, stakeholders, success metrics, constraints, and target domains for VDD phase 1.

Instructions

VDD Phase 1: Expand a freeform vision statement into vdd/vision.md — Impact Model (Goal, Actors, Impacts), Stakeholder Map, Success Metrics (leading + lagging), Constraints & Boundaries, and Target Domains. Overwrites any existing vdd/vision.md. Requires statement (freeform 1-3 paragraph intent, not a title) and a prior vdd_init. Run once, after vdd_init and before vdd_strategize; to revise a vision once downstream artifacts exist, use vdd_amend so the change cascades instead of re-running this. Parameter relationships: statement must be freeform prose (1-3 paragraphs), not a title; projectRoot must match the root used by vdd_init.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statementYesFreeform vision statement
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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms and localizes the destruction ('Overwrites any existing vdd/vision.md'), which is exactly the kind of added context that matters. It also discloses the prerequisite state (a prior vdd_init) that annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing the write's atomicity or failure behavior, hence not a 5.

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 artifact path, then prerequisites, then alternative routing, then parameter notes. Dense but every clause carries information; the parameter-relationship sentence is slightly redundant with the earlier 'freeform 1-3 paragraph intent' phrase.

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 need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining unknowns an agent needs: overwrite semantics, ordering constraints, prerequisite phase, and revision via vdd_amend. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 already 100%, but the description still adds value beyond the schema by constraining statement to 'freeform 1-3 paragraph intent, not a title' and by requiring projectRoot to match the value used by vdd_init. These are non-obvious usage constraints rather than restatements.

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 ('Expand a freeform vision statement into vdd/vision.md') and enumerates the sections produced, so the agent knows exactly what artifact is created. The sibling set is large, and this description clearly distinguishes the vision-expansion phase from vdd_strategize, vdd_amend, and vdd_init.

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 sequencing ('Run once, after vdd_init and before vdd_strategize') plus an explicit alternative and its condition ('to revise a vision once downstream artifacts exist, use vdd_amend so the change cascades'). This is a textbook when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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