biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create use case

create_uc

Creates a new use case document: assigns an ID, derives a filename from the H1 title, validates the body, and writes it to the use-case directory; can also create translations.

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. The structure reference is the get_uc_schema tool (the generated JSON Schema); the get_uc_template/get_uc_example tools return the authoring template and a complete sample. Returns the newly created document's frontmatter only (no body); use the corresponding get_uc 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/uc/ 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 use case 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 UcNotFoundError), and the variant is written to docs/uc/{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 / UcFrontmatter / properties / status / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "accepted",
+  "deprecated",
+  "draft",
+  "proposed",
+  "superseded"
+]
```
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: validation failures return a non-raising ValidateResult (valid=False, nothing written), return value is frontmatter-only, missing source raises UcNotFoundError, existing variant raises FileExistsError, and malformed/mismatched language or id raises ValueError before any file access. That is exactly the safety and failure-mode context an agent needs before a mutation.

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 operation is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the text is a single dense block bloated with internal process artifacts (ADR UUIDs, 'GitHub issue #204 -- case 5 of the ADR 519d1206 non-raising-structured-result workaround chain', 'feat-110', 'feat-197-i18n') that add no decision value for an agent. The substantive language/id rules are useful but could be trimmed and structured into bullets for faster parsing.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers inputs, validation semantics, all error conditions, side effects on disk paths, and return shape (frontmatter only, with an output schema present so body details are rightly deferred). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 compensate and it does: `content` is body-only, validated and persisted verbatim (and validated against the language's heading-mapping table for translations); `id` is the shared EN source id, required for non-default languages and forbidden for 'en'; `language` defaults to 'en', must be an ISO 639-1-shaped lowercase code, and requires a packaged heading-mapping table. All three parameters gain meaning not present in 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?

Opening sentence names a specific verb (create), the resource (use case document), and the concrete effects: fresh id, filename derived from H1, body validated, written to the use-case base directory. It also distinguishes the dual mode (new EN doc vs. translation) and points to get_uc for retrieval, so an agent can separate it from get_uc / create_* siblings without opening a 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?

Clear routing guidance: get_uc_schema for structure, get_uc_template/get_uc_example for authoring inputs, get_uc afterward for the full body. The language/id coupling is spelled out explicitly (omit id for 'en', id required otherwise). However, it never states when to use this versus the sibling edit/update tools for an existing use case, so a modification-vs-creation decision is left implicit.

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

Deploy Server