biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create use case

create_uc

Create a use case: validate body-only content, assign an ID, derive a filename from the H1, and write the Markdown file to the base directory. Invalid content returns errors and writes nothing.

Instructions

Create a new use case: 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 use-case 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_uc 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

A4.4/5.0

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 largely meets it: it discloses id assignment, filename derivation, validation of body-only content, the non-raising ValidateResult on failure (valid=False, capped error message) instead of raising AssertionError/ValidationError, that nothing is written on failure, and that only frontmatter is returned.

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 purpose, but the middle sentence is a dense run-on laden with internal identifiers (ADR UUIDs, feat-110, GitHub issue #204, case numbers) that add little for an agent selecting or invoking the tool. Those references inflate length without improving the call decision.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still helpfully notes frontmatter-only returns. For an unannotated mutation tool it covers creation and failure behavior well, though it omits overwrite/permission behavior and whether the body requires a title.

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 clarify that content is the complete body-only content (no frontmatter) and that its H1 title is used to derive the filename. It does not state format requirements (e.g., whether an H1 is mandatory), leaving a small gap.

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 and resource ('Create a new use case') and enumerates the concrete mechanics (fresh id assignment, filename derivation from the H1 title, validation, write to the use-case base directory). An agent can distinguish it from get_uc, parse_uc, and edit/update without opening any schema.

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_uc for fetching the full document after creation, which is genuinely useful follow-up guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer create_uc over parse_uc/edit/update, and the creation context itself is only implied.

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

Deploy Server