Generates architecture diagrams using Mermaid, enabling visual auditing and alignment of code logic before making changes.
A Deterministic Architecture Engine and Logic Deadlock Protocol for Cursor
As project complexity increases, AI programming often falls into a "hallucination spiral." VibeLogic MCP is not just another code generator; it is a control layer positioned between "human intent" and "code execution." It forces the AI to undergo a visual blueprint audit before making any code modifications.
Visual Audit: Forces the AI to extract project topology and align logic via Mermaid blueprints, ensuring 100% intent determinism.
Logic Deadlock Protocol: An exclusive attention-hijacking protocol that forces the AI to remain on standby until the "blueprint is confirmed," preventing unauthorized refactoring.
Cross-File Deep Tracking: Automatically identifies multi-file dependency changes and generates a structured Action Plan.
Asset Archiving: All architectural decisions are automatically exported as .md files, permanently preserved as the project's architectural evolution log.
Related MCP server: mcp-edit-math
Ensure you have Node.js installed, then run the following directly in Cursor:
npx vibelogic-mcpOpen Cursor Settings -> Features -> MCP. Click + Add New MCP Server. Configure as follows:
{
"mcpServers": {
"VibeLogic": {
"command": "npx.cmd",
"args": [
"-y",
"vibelogic-mcp@latest"
]
}
}
}"Help me analyze the logic of this feature; I want to see a diagram." "I want to refactor the login module's validation flow; generate a diagram and an action plan first." "Based on the current code, audit the impact of the new API on the existing architecture."
BYOK (Bring Your Own Key): VibeLogic runs in your local environment, stores no code, and fully leverages the model capabilities selected in your Cursor. No Over-complication: Activates only when core logic changes are involved, without interfering with routine UI adjustments or bug fixes.
仅在涉及项目核心逻辑变更、新增功能、跨文件流程修改，或用户明确要求“查看项目逻辑”、“查看当前项目实现”时调用。 警告：对于调整简单参数、常数、阈值、纯 UI 颜色/样式微调、补充注释、变量重命名、局部语法 Bug 修复等不涉及核心逻辑变动的操作，严禁调用此工具。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent | Yes | 用户意图：'view' 表示仅查看，'modify' 表示重构。 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not describe what the tool does (e.g., whether it reads or modifies, side effects, return values). It only states when to call, missing essential behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise and front-loaded with usage conditions. While slightly verbose with the warning, it remains efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain return values or effect of the tool. It only covers when to call, leaving the agent without knowledge of what to expect from invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'intent' that has an enum and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is for core logic changes, new features, cross-file modifications, or when user asks to view project logic. It distinguishes what is not its purpose (trivial changes) effectively, despite having no sibling tools to differentiate from.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly specifies when to call and when not to call, with concrete examples of allowed and forbidden use cases. This provides strong guidance for an AI agent to select the appropriate tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0get_logic_blueprintScored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no risk of confusion between tools.
The single tool uses a verb_noun pattern (get_logic_blueprint), and with only one tool, consistency is not an issue.
One tool is too few for a server named 'vibelogic', which suggests a need for multiple logic-related operations. The tool is also highly restricted in usage, further limiting its utility.
A single tool cannot cover the expected lifecycle or operations for logic manipulation. The tool itself warns against many common tasks, leaving obvious gaps.
Deterministic AI code review, with an audit record. Governance inside the agent loop.
Let Claude, Cursor, or ChatGPT author Mermaid diagrams your team can read and share.
AI Agent with Architectural Memory. Impact analysis (free), tests and code from the graph (pro).
Pre-execution governance for AI agents. Deterministic PASS/FAIL/REVIEW verdicts, replayable proof.
