mcp-vdd

Expand Vision

vdd_vision

Destructive

Expand a freeform vision statement into a structured vdd/vision.md containing impact model, stakeholder map, success metrics, constraints, and target domains. Runs once after vdd_init; overwrites existing file.

Instructions

VDD Phase 1: Expand a freeform vision statement into vdd/vision.md — Impact Model (Goal, Actors, Impacts), Stakeholder Map, Success Metrics (leading + lagging), Constraints & Boundaries, and Target Domains. Overwrites any existing vdd/vision.md. Requires statement (freeform 1-3 paragraph intent, not a title) and a prior vdd_init. Run once, after vdd_init and before vdd_strategize; to revise a vision once downstream artifacts exist, use vdd_amend so the change cascades instead of re-running this.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`statement`	Yes	Freeform vision statement
`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

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by stating the specific file overwritten (vdd/vision.md) and warning that re-running after downstream artifacts exist would bypass cascading updates. This adds operational context beyond the annotation, including sequencing constraints. There is no contradiction.

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?

Information is densely packed and front-loaded: purpose first, then overwrite behavior, requirements, and sequencing. Every clause carries operational value and there is no filler. The length is justified by the tool's position in a phased workflow.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and rich sibling set, the description covers all needed context: input requirements, prerequisite, ordering, destructive behavior, and the alternative for revisions. The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, so nothing essential 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance for the required statement parameter—'freeform 1-3 paragraph intent, not a title'—which clarifies acceptable input beyond the schema's generic 'Freeform vision statement'. projectRoot semantics are adequately covered by 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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Expand a freeform vision statement into vdd/vision.md') and enumerates the deliverable sections, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It also differentiates itself from sibling vdd_amend by specifying when each is appropriate. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 states the exact position in the workflow: run once after vdd_init and before vdd_strategize, and requires a prior vdd_init. It explicitly redirects revision scenarios to vdd_amend, making the when-to-use/alternatives decision explicit. No ambiguity about when this tool should be selected.

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

Deploy Server