mcp-vdd

Initialize Constitution

vdd_init

Destructive

Creates constitution.md at project root with immutable tech stack, conventions, security constraints, and banned patterns for later phases. Run before vdd_vision; use vdd_amend for existing ones.

Instructions

VDD Phase 0: Generate constitution.md at the project root — the immutable tech stack, conventions, security constraints, naming rules, and banned patterns that every later phase obeys. Overwrites any existing constitution.md. Run this first, before vdd_vision; to change a constitution that already exists, use vdd_amend instead of re-running this. projectRoot sets the directory constitution.md is written to and that later phases resolve every vdd/ artifact against (default ".").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation is reinforced and made specific by 'Overwrites any existing constitution.md' — this adds the exact artifact that gets destroyed, which is genuinely useful beyond the annotation. No contradiction; the write/file-generation behavior is also disclosed. Slightly short of 5 only because there's no mention of permissions or reversibility, though the overwrite disclosure carries most of the burden.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause ('VDD Phase 0: Generate constitution.md'). Every sentence earns its place (purpose, destructive behavior, ordering, alternative, parameter meaning). Slightly long but appropriately so given the ordering and alternative-tool guidance it carries.

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?

Complete for a single-optional-param file generator: purpose, ordering, destructive behavior, alternative route, and parameter semantics are all covered. Annotations carry the safety profile and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. Nothing an agent requires to call this 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% so the schema fully documents projectRoot, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful extra context — that projectRoot is the base against which 'later phases resolve every vdd/ artifact' — which explains downstream consequences of the parameter beyond mere syntax. This elevates it above the baseline.

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 ('Generate'), resource (constitution.md), and enumerates its contents (tech stack, conventions, security constraints, naming rules, banned patterns). Explicitly positions itself as 'VDD Phase 0' and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming vdd_amend as the modification path. An agent can tell this apart from all 16 siblings.

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 ordering ('Run this first, before vdd_vision'), an explicit exclusion ('to change a constitution that already exists, use vdd_amend instead of re-running this'), and names the exact alternative tool. Nothing about when-to-use 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