biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create goal

create_gol

Creates and validates a new goal document with a fresh ID, derives a filename from its H1 title, and writes it to the goal directory; supports translated variants by language code.

Instructions

Create a new goal: assigns a fresh id, derives a filename from the body's H1 title, validates the submitted body-only content, and writes the new document to the goal base directory. A content-validation failure of the submitted body returns a non-raising ValidateResult (valid=False, a single errors[].message capped at 300 chars as the generic validate tool caps it, feat-110) instead of raising AssertionError/pydantic.ValidationError (ADR f14f125e-eaad-4f4f-a6fd-3c931bed726e, GitHub issue #204 -- case 5 of the ADR 519d1206 non-raising-structured-result workaround chain); nothing is written in that case. The structure reference is the get_gol_schema tool (the generated JSON Schema); the get_gol_template/get_gol_example tools return the authoring template and a complete sample. Returns the newly created document's frontmatter only (no body); use the corresponding get_gol tool to fetch the full document afterward. The optional language parameter (default 'en', feat-197-i18n) selects the language to create the document in: omitted/'en' = a new flat docs/gol/ document with a fresh id, exactly the default behavior (id must then be omitted); a non-default ISO 639-1-shaped lowercase two-letter code (e.g. 'de') creates a TRANSLATION of an existing goal instead: id -- the shared id of the existing EN source document -- is then required (no fresh id is assigned; the variant carries the same id), the EN source must exist (else GolNotFoundError), and the variant is written to docs/gol/{language}/ under the EN source's exact file name with status draft; content is validated through that language's heading-mapping table (translated headings are accepted) and persisted verbatim. An existing variant of that id and language is never overwritten (FileExistsError). A malformed language, one with no packaged heading-mapping table, a missing id for a non-default language, or an id given for the default language is a ValueError raised before any file access.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`id`	No
`content`	Yes
`language`	No	en

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.38.0Nov 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / language

Added value: +{
+  "default": "en",
+  "title": "Language",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv0.37.0Oct 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / $defs / GolFrontmatter / properties / status / enum

Added value: +[
+  "accepted",
+  "deprecated",
+  "draft",
+  "implemented",
+  "proposed",
+  "rejected",
+  "superseded"
+]

First observedv0.36.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it discloses the non-raising ValidateResult on validation failure, that nothing is written in that case, that existing variants are never overwritten (FileExistsError), that a missing source is GolNotFoundError, that malformed languages are ValueErrors raised before any file access, and that only frontmatter is returned. This is substantially more than annotations would typically convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is front-loaded and substantive, but it is delivered as one very long block dense with internal provenance markers ('feat-110', 'ADR f14f125e-eaad-4f4f-a6fd-3c931bed726e, GitHub issue #204 -- case 5 of the ADR 519d1206 ... chain', 'feat-197-i18n') that add no decision-relevant meaning for an agent. Splitting the default-creation and translation-variant behaviors into separate structures would materially improve scannability.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: preconditions, failure modes, the translation path, overwrite protection, and an explicit pointer to fetch the body via get_gol since the return is frontmatter-only. Nothing material is left to inference.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `language` semantics (default 'en', ISO 639-1 lowercase shape, must have a packaged heading-mapping table), `id` semantics (must be omitted for default language, required and shared for translation variants), and `content` semantics (body-only, validated through the language's heading table, persisted verbatim) are all spelled out.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a new goal') plus concrete sub-behaviors: fresh id assignment, filename derivation from the body's H1, content validation, and the write target directory. An agent can distinguish this from create_prb/create_req/create_tsk because the description is scoped entirely to goal documents and their base directory.

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?

Explicit routing is given for related tools: get_gol_schema for the structure reference, get_gol_template/get_gol_example for authoring, and get_gol afterward for the full body. It also states precise when-to-use branches ('omitted/'en'' vs 'a non-default ISO 639-1-shaped code') and the preconditions that select each one.

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

Deploy Server