biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create System Requirements Specification

create_sysrs

Create a new System Requirements Specification by validating body content, assigning a fresh ID, deriving a filename from the H1 title, and writing it to the sysrs directory.

Instructions

Create a new System Requirements Specification: 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 System Requirements Specification 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_sysrs_schema tool (the generated JSON Schema); the get_sysrs_template/get_sysrs_example tools return the authoring template and a complete sample. Returns the newly created document's frontmatter only (no body); use the corresponding get_sysrs 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/sysrs/ 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 System Requirements Specification 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 SysrsNotFoundError), and the variant is written to docs/sysrs/{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.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "create_sysrs"
  }
}

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 / SysrsFrontmatter / 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, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that validation failures return a non-raising ValidateResult with nothing written, that an existing variant is never overwritten (FileExistsError), that a missing EN source raises SysrsNotFoundError, and that malformed arguments raise ValueError before any file access. It also notes new variants get status draft and are written verbatim.

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 the core action, which is good, but it devolves into a single dense run-on paragraph salted with internal references (feat-110, ADR f14f125e-..., GitHub issue #204, 'case 5 of the ADR 519d1206 ... chain') that add no decision value for an agent. The same content could be roughly half the length with bulleted mode descriptions.

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 an i18n branch, several failure modes, and a partial-return contract, the description covers creation, translation, validation, persistence, and error behavior. An output schema exists and the description still usefully notes the return is frontmatter only, so an agent knows to call get_sysrs for the body.

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 supply all meaning, and it does: `id` is required only for non-default languages and must be omitted for 'en'; `language` defaults to 'en', must be an ISO 639-1-shaped lowercase two-letter code with a packaged heading-mapping table; `content` is body-only and validated through the language-specific heading table. This is well beyond what the bare schema conveys.

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 System Requirements Specification") and immediately enumerates the concrete side effects: fresh id assignment, filename derived from the body's H1, body-only validation, and write to the sysrs base directory. This cleanly separates it from the many sibling 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to companions: get_sysrs_schema for structure, get_sysrs_template/get_sysrs_example for authoring aids, and get_sysrs afterward for the full body. It also spells out the two mutually exclusive usage modes for `language` (default vs. translation of an existing id). It stops short of stating when *not* to use this tool (e.g., use `update`/`edit` to modify an existing spec), which keeps it from a 5.

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

Deploy Server