mcp-vdd

Analyze Consistency

vdd_analyze

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess spec completeness for a feature by counting acceptance criteria, detecting unresolved clarification markers and placeholders, and confirming plan.md/tasks.md exist. Read-only metrics to guide planning and implementation.

Instructions

VDD Cross-phase: Cross-artifact consistency analysis for one feature — acceptance-criteria (AC) count, unresolved [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers, [e.g.] placeholder density, and whether plan.md and tasks.md exist. Read-only; returns metrics without modifying files. Pass feature (the spec directory name). Use during planning and implementation to check a spec is complete; for the project-wide matrix use vdd_trace, and for release validation use vdd_validate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`feature`	Yes	Feature name (spec directory name)
`projectRoot`	No	Project root: directory that constitution.md and the vdd/ folder are written to and resolved against (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.

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds useful behavioral context: 'Read-only; returns metrics without modifying files' and 'Cross-phase' positioning. This goes beyond the structured annotations by clarifying the operation's side-effect-free nature and what kind of output it produces.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core scope and metrics in the first sentence, then usage guidance and alternatives. The 'VDD Cross-phase:' prefix is slightly redundant given the tool name, but every other sentence earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a moderate-complexity read-only analysis tool with an output schema, complete parameter documentation, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, timing, alternatives, and expected output behavior. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds mild emphasis that 'feature' is the spec directory name, matching the schema, but does not add new meaning about either parameter. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('analyze'), a specific resource ('cross-artifact consistency for one feature'), and enumerates concrete metrics (AC count, unresolved clarification markers, placeholder density, plan.md/tasks.md existence). It also explicitly contrasts with vdd_trace and vdd_validate, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

The description gives explicit timing guidance ('Use during planning and implementation to check a spec is complete') and explicitly names alternatives for different scenarios ('for the project-wide matrix use vdd_trace, and for release validation use vdd_validate'). An agent knows exactly when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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

Deploy Server