biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create QA document

create_qa

Creates a validated QA document: assigns an ID, derives a filename from the H1 title, writes it to the QA directory, and returns frontmatter only; fetch full content with get_qa.

Instructions

Create a new Question and Answer (QA) document: 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 QA 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. Returns the newly created document's frontmatter only (no body); use the corresponding get_qa tool to fetch the full document afterward.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses id assignment, filename derivation from the H1 title, validation of body-only content, write target directory, that nothing is written on validation failure, and the non-raising ValidateResult contract with a capped error message. It also states that only frontmatter (no body) is returned. No annotation contradiction.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the critical return-contract and follow-up tool are stated clearly. The dense parenthetical citing ADR UUIDs, feat-110, and 'case 5 of the ADR chain' adds internal-reference clutter that a calling agent does not need.

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 create tool with an output schema present, the description covers what is written, what is not written on failure, the failure/result shape, and how to retrieve the full document. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 coverage is 0% and the single param is undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates by clarifying that content is 'body-only' and that a filename is derived from its H1 title, implying an H1 is expected. This meaningfully extends beyond the bare 'content: string' 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a new Question and Answer (QA) document') and enumerates the distinct operations performed (fresh id, filename derivation, body validation, write to QA base dir). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling create_* tools for other document types and from get_qa.

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?

The description explicitly routes the agent to the follow-up tool ('use the corresponding get_qa tool to fetch the full document afterward'), which is genuine guidance. However, it gives no when-not-to-use conditions and does not contrast with siblings like edit, update, or parse_qa.

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

Deploy Server