biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create Standard Operating Procedure

create_sop

Create a Standard Operating Procedure by assigning an ID, deriving the filename from the body H1 title, validating content, and writing it to the SOP directory; supports translated variants.

Instructions

Create a new Standard Operating Procedure: 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 SOP 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_sop_schema tool (the generated JSON Schema); the get_sop_template/get_sop_example tools return the authoring template and a complete sample. Returns the newly created document's frontmatter only (no body); use the corresponding get_sop 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/sop/ 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 Standard Operating Procedure 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 SopNotFoundError), and the variant is written to docs/sop/{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 / SopFrontmatter / properties / status / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "active",
+  "approved",
+  "draft",
+  "retired",
+  "review"
+]
```
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 provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses id assignment, filename derivation, validation failure behavior (non-raising ValidateResult, no write), translation-mode file paths, overwrite protection for variants, and specific error classes such as FileExistsError, SopNotFoundError, and ValueError.

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 purpose and key behavior are front-loaded, but the description is a single dense paragraph with internal ADR UUIDs, issue numbers, and feature tags that add little for an invoking agent. The complexity justifies substantial detail, but the structure could be clearer and some references trimmed.

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 the tool's complexity, lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains both default creation and translation modes, validation outcomes, write behavior, error conditions, and what is returned, leaving no major invocation question unanswered.

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 explain the parameters, and it does: content is body-only content whose H1 title drives the filename; id is optional for default English creation but required for translation mode; language defaults to 'en' and switches to translation behavior when set to a supported non-default two-letter code.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Standard Operating Procedure.' It then enumerates the concrete actions (assigns a fresh id, derives a filename from the H1 title, validates body-only content, writes the document) and names related SOP tools, so an agent can distinguish it from get_sop, edit, update, and the create_* tools for other document types.

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 clear operational context: use get_sop_schema for the structure reference, get_sop_template/get_sop_example for authoring aids, and get_sop afterward to fetch the full document. It also explains when the language parameter switches to translation mode and when id must be omitted or required, though it does not explicitly say to use edit/update rather than create_sop for existing SOPs.

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

Deploy Server