mcp-vdd

Inspect Project

vdd_inspect

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect VDD projects read-only in one call: return the full V→S→T→SP→PL→TK traceability matrix or per-feature spec metrics without modifying files.

Instructions

VDD Cross-phase: Read-only inspection of the current project in one call — scope selects the view. scope="project" (default) returns the bidirectional V→S→T→SP→PL→TK traceability matrix across all vdd/ artifacts; scope="feature" returns per-feature spec metrics (acceptance-criteria count, unresolved [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers, [e.g.] placeholder density, and whether plan.md/tasks.md exist). Never modifies files. Pass feature for the feature scope; for release-readiness validation with gates use vdd_validate, and to author a spec use vdd_specify. Parameter relationships: scope="feature" requires feature, while scope="project" (the default) ignores it; projectRoot must match the root used by earlier phases. Choose vdd_inspect for the traceability matrix or per-feature metrics; use vdd_validate for the gate report.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No	Inspect scope: "project" (default) returns the traceability matrix; "feature" returns per-feature spec metrics (requires feature)
`feature`	No	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.

Addedv1.8.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so 'Never modifies files' is largely redundant, but the description adds real value by disclosing what each scope returns (traceability matrix vs per-feature metrics) and the cross-phase coupling via projectRoot. No mention of performance or auth, 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 the core purpose and scope semantics, and every clause carries routing information. It slightly over-repeats the scope routing by restating 'Choose vdd_inspect for the traceability matrix or per-feature metrics' after already contrasting with vdd_validate.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers scope selection, parameter coupling, and sibling alternatives. Nothing required to invoke the tool 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 baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond it: it encodes the dependency that scope="feature" requires feature while project scope ignores it, and that projectRoot must match the root used by earlier phases. These relationships are not expressible in the schema.

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 ('Read-only inspection of the current project') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming vdd_validate and vdd_specify. The two scopes are enumerated with concrete outputs, so an agent knows exactly what it will get.

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 routing: 'for release-readiness validation with gates use vdd_validate, and to author a spec use vdd_specify.' It also states which scope to choose and when, leaving nothing 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