mcp-vdd

Generate Tasks

vdd_tasks

Destructive

Break a feature plan into atomic test-first tasks with acceptance criteria, contract references, and size estimates. Overwrites tasks.md; requires plan.md from vdd_plan.

Instructions

VDD Phase 6: Break the plan into atomic test-first tasks in vdd/specs//tasks.md — each references acceptance criteria (AC) and contracts, is sized S/M/L, and is marked [P] when parallelizable. Overwrites tasks.md. Requires plan.md; run after vdd_plan. To fetch the next uncompleted task from an existing tasks.md use vdd_get_next_task instead of re-running this.

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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly discloses the destructive effect: 'Overwrites tasks.md', which aligns with and strengthens the destructiveHint annotation. It also reveals the dependency on plan.md and the phase context, giving the agent a clear behavioral model beyond the annotation alone.

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?

Three dense sentences each earn their place: one defines the tool's output and format, one warns about the destructive overwrite and prerequisite, and one routes to the sibling tool. The key action is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

Despite only two parameters and an output schema being present, the description provides what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: phase, prerequisite, output file path, task formatting rules, destructive side effect, and the alternative for a related use case. Nothing critical is missing.

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 the schema already documents both feature and projectRoot clearly. The description adds some contextual meaning by showing how feature is used in the output path vdd/specs/<feature>/tasks.md, but it does not materially extend parameter knowledge beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Break the plan into atomic test-first tasks in vdd/specs/<feature>/tasks.md'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling vdd_get_next_task by stating that fetching an existing uncompleted task should use that tool instead.

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?

It explicitly states prerequisites and sequencing: 'Requires plan.md; run after vdd_plan.' It also names the alternative tool for a different scenario, telling the agent not to re-run this when it only needs the next uncompleted task. This leaves little ambiguity about when to use the tool.

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

Deploy Server