TDD-MCP

by tinmancoding

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

next_phase

Move to the next TDD phase with evidence of completed work to maintain disciplined test-first development.

Instructions

Move to the next phase in the TDD cycle.

Args: evidence_description: Description of what was accomplished to justify transition

Returns: New session state after phase transition

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "evidence_description": "<evidence_description>"
    },
    "name": "next_phase"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`evidence_description`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session_id`	Yes
`current_phase`	Yes
`cycle_number`	Yes
`goal`	Yes
`test_files`	Yes
`implementation_files`	Yes
`run_tests`	Yes
`custom_rules`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.1May 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return value (new session state) but does not disclose side effects, constraints (e.g., whether a session must be active), or behavior if the phase cannot transition.

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?

Extremely concise with no wasted words. The args/returns section provides clear structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity (one param, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose, parameter, and return. Minor gap: no mention of session dependency or TDD cycle details.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining evidence_description is a justification for transition, going beyond the schema's type-only info.

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?

Clearly states the tool moves to the next phase in the TDD cycle, which distinguishes it from siblings like start_session or rollback that manage session state rather than progressing phases.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., rollback, log), nor any prerequisites or conditions for using it.

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

Deploy Server