Skip to main content
Glama
simonplmak-cloud

mcp-vdd

by simonplmak-cloud
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Research Strategy

vdd_strategize
Destructive

Generate a strategy.md from vision and research findings, including strategic pillars, competitive analysis, and risk register.

Instructions

VDD Phase 2: Produce research-backed strategy into vdd/strategy.md — strategic pillars, competitive analysis, and a risk register, resolved from the vision target-domain primers. Overwrites vdd/strategy.md. Requires vdd/vision.md; run after vdd_vision and before vdd_tactics. Two-pass: call once with availableTools to get the research-subagent dispatch specs, then re-call with researchFindings to synthesize strategy.md (a first call with neither returns only the dispatch specs). To change strategy after artifacts exist, use vdd_amend.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectRootNoProject root: directory that constitution.md and the vdd/ folder are written to and resolved against (default ".").
capabilitiesNoAlias for availableTools
availableToolsNoMCP/tool names available to the host agent (e.g., ["brave-search","perplexity","context7","gh_grep","playwright","filesystem"])
researchFindingsNoConsolidated research subagent findings to synthesize into strategy.md

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 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 \".\")"
  2. 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"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses the destructive overwrite behavior ('Overwrites vdd/strategy.md'), consistent with destructiveHint: true. It also explains the two-pass behavior and the fallback condition ('a first call with neither returns only the dispatch specs'). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then covers prerequisites, ordering, the two-pass workflow, and the alternative tool. It is comprehensive without redundancy.

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 complex tool with two-pass behavior, a destructive overwrite, and a dependency on a prior artifact, the description covers all essential aspects: output, content, sequence, prerequisite, call pattern, and fallback. An output schema exists, so return values are already documented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While the schema already documents each parameter, the description adds critical semantic context: it explains that capabilities is an alias for availableTools, and describes the two-pass relationship between availableTools (used first to get dispatch specs) and researchFindings (used second to synthesize). This goes beyond the schema's individual 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 clearly states the tool produces a research-backed strategy into vdd/strategy.md, listing the three content components (strategic pillars, competitive analysis, risk register). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the phase (VDD Phase 2), the dependency on vdd/vision.md, and the order relative to vdd_vision and vdd_tactics.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('run after vdd_vision and before vdd_tactics'), the prerequisite (requires vdd/vision.md), and the exact two-pass calling convention (first call with availableTools, second with researchFindings). It also names the alternative for changes: 'use vdd_amend.'

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