biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create risk

create_rsk

Creates and validates a new risk document, assigns an ID, derives a filename from the H1 title, and writes it to the risk directory; optionally creates a language translation variant.

Instructions

Create a new risk: 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 risk 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_rsk_schema tool (the generated JSON Schema); the get_rsk_template/get_rsk_example tools return the authoring template and a complete sample. Returns the newly created document's frontmatter only (no body); use the corresponding get_rsk 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/rsk/ 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 risk 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 RskNotFoundError), and the variant is written to docs/rsk/{language}/ under the EN source's exact file name with status open; 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 / RskFrontmatter / properties / status / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "accepted",
+  "closed",
+  "dropped",
+  "mitigating",
+  "occurred",
+  "open"
+]
```
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 zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the non-raising ValidateResult on content failure, that nothing is written in that case, FileExistsError on an existing language variant, RskNotFoundError for a missing EN source, and ValueError for malformed language/missing id/id-supplied-for-default — all before any file access. It also states the return shape is frontmatter only.

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?

Front-loaded with a genuinely useful first sentence, but the single dense paragraph is polluted by references that mean nothing to an agent — ADR UUIDs, `feat-110`, `feat-197-i18n`, GitHub issue #204, case 5 of an ADR workaround chain. The translation branch would be far clearer as a short list rather than nested parentheticals.

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 tool with a non-obvious dual mode (create vs. translate), three undocumented-in-schema parameters, and no annotations, the description covers creation, validation, error paths, file placement, overwrite policy, and return shape. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to enumerate return fields, and correctly limits itself to noting frontmatter-only.

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 largely does: `language` is explained as an ISO 639-1-shaped lowercase code that toggles between fresh-document and translation semantics, `id` is explained as required-for-translation / forbidden-for-default, and `content` is described as body-only content validated against a per-language heading-mapping table. Minor gaps remain (exact accepted shape of `id`, what "body-only" permits regarding an H1) but the meaning added far exceeds 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Create a new risk") and immediately enumerates the concrete side effects: fresh id assignment, filename derivation from the body H1, body validation, and writing to the risk base directory. It also contrasts itself with the read/authoring siblings (get_rsk, get_rsk_schema, get_rsk_template, get_rsk_example), so an agent can distinguish write-vs-read without opening schemas.

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_rsk_schema for structure, get_rsk_template/get_rsk_example for authoring, and get_rsk afterward to retrieve the full document — clear alternative-tool guidance. What it lacks is any statement of when *not* to call it (e.g. to modify an existing risk, use edit/update_frontmatter instead), even though `update`/`edit`/`update_section` are siblings.

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

Deploy Server