biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create QA document

create_qa

Creates a validated Question and Answer document with a fresh ID and H1-derived filename in the QA directory; supports creating language translations from an existing document ID.

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. The structure reference is the get_qa_schema tool (the generated JSON Schema); the get_qa_template/get_qa_example tools return the authoring template and a complete sample. Returns the newly created document's frontmatter only (no body); use the corresponding get_qa 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/qa/ 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 QA document 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 QaNotFoundError), and the variant is written to docs/qa/{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 / QaFrontmatter / properties / status / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "active",
+  "cancelled",
+  "done",
+  "draft"
+]
```
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, the description fully carries the burden: it discloses that validation failures return a non-raising ValidateResult with nothing written, that existing language variants are never overwritten (FileExistsError), that missing/non-existent sources raise QaNotFoundError, and that malformed language or id mismatches raise ValueError before file access. It also states the return is frontmatter only, no body.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the content is accurate, but it is a single dense block studded with internal references (feat-110, ADR UUIDs, GitHub issue #204, feat-197-i18n) that add noise for an agent selecting a tool. Bullet-pointing the language branches and dropping ticket/ADR identifiers would improve scannability without losing substance.

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?

Given three parameters, a mutation, an exotic language/translation branch, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: creation effects, error semantics, no-overwrite behavior, what is returned (frontmatter only), and where to go for the full document and schema. Nothing critical is omitted.

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: 'content' is body-only and validated per-language; 'id' must be omitted for default language but is required (shared EN source id) for a translation; 'language' defaults to 'en' and otherwise must be an ISO 639-1 lowercase two-letter code with a packaged heading-mapping table. This adds substantial meaning absent from 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a new Question and Answer (QA) document') and enumerates the concrete effects: fresh id, filename derived from H1, body-only validation, write to QA base directory. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_qa (fetch full document) and points to get_qa_schema/template/example, so an agent can separate it from the many sibling create_* tools.

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: use this to create, then use get_qa to read the full document; use get_qa_schema for structure and get_qa_template/example for authoring. It also states the precise when-to-use branch for language (omitted/'en' vs non-default code creating a translation of an existing doc), including prerequisites like the EN source having to exist.

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

Deploy Server