biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create requirement

create_req

Creates a new requirement document by assigning a fresh ID, deriving a filename from the H1 title, validating content, and writing it to the requirement base directory. Returns frontmatter only.

Instructions

Create a new requirement: 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 requirement 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_req 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

A4.5/5.0

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 well: it discloses the non-raising ValidateResult contract, the exact failure shape (valid=False, single errors[].message capped at 300 chars), and crucially that nothing is written on validation failure. It also states the return is frontmatter-only, which is not inferable from the schema.

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 core behavior is front-loaded, but the paragraph is bloated with internal provenance that does not help tool selection: ADR UUIDs, GitHub issue #204, 'feat-110', and 'case 5 of the ADR 519d1206 workaround chain'. Those clauses cost tokens without guiding the agent.

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 single-parameter creation tool, all decision-relevant information is present: what it writes, how the id/filename are derived, error semantics, the no-write-on-failure guarantee, and what is returned. An output schema exists, yet the description still clarifies the return scope, leaving no gap for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does add real meaning: content is 'body-only' (frontmatter is derived, not supplied) and must contain an H1 title used for the filename. It stops short of describing validation rules or the expected markdown format, so it is not fully compensating.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (create a new requirement) and enumerates the exact operations performed: id assignment, filename derivation from the body H1, body validation, and write to the base directory. It also distinguishes itself from the retrieval sibling by pointing to get_req for the full document.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_req after creation to fetch the full document, which is clear follow-up guidance. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when a requirement already exists, or versus parse_req/list_req) or any preconditions, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

Deploy Server