biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create problem statement

create_prb

Creates a new problem statement: assigns an ID, validates body content, derives a filename from the H1 title, and writes a markdown file; invalid content returns a structured error and writes nothing.

Instructions

Create a new Problem Statement: 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 problem statement 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_prb_schema tool (the generated JSON Schema); the get_prb_template/get_prb_example tools return the authoring template and a complete sample. Returns the newly created document's frontmatter only (no body); use the corresponding get_prb 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/prb/ 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 problem statement 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 PrbNotFoundError), and the variant is written to docs/prb/{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 / PrbFrontmatter / properties / status / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "active",
+  "cancelled",
+  "draft",
+  "resolved"
+]
```
First observedv0.36.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: validation failures return a non-raising ValidateResult with no file written, successful calls return only frontmatter, translations require an existing EN source with shared id, and overwrite attempts raise FileExistsError. It also specifies PrbNotFoundError and pre-file-access ValueError conditions.

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 description is front-loaded and logically ordered, but it is a dense single paragraph with implementation references such as feat numbers, ADR UUIDs, and GitHub issue identifiers that do not help an agent invoke the tool. The validation-error explanation is also repeated with excessive internal detail.

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 complex creation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the important gaps: return shape, validation behavior, translation workflow, file paths, id assignment, and error cases. An agent has enough information to call it correctly in both default and translation modes.

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 define all three parameters, and it does: content is body-only validated content with an H1 title, id is optional for default EN documents but required for translation variants, and language defaults to 'en' with detailed translation semantics. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource: creating a new Problem Statement, including id assignment, filename derivation, validation, and persistence. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_prb, get_prb_schema, get_prb_template, and get_prb_example by naming those alternatives and their roles.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives strong usage context: use get_prb_schema for structure, get_prb_template/example for authoring, and get_prb afterward to fetch the full body. It also explains the default versus translation-mode conditions for the language parameter, though it does not explicitly state when not to create a new problem statement.

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

Deploy Server