biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create verification case record

create_vcr

Creates a new verification case record from validated body-only content, assigns an ID and filename, or creates a translation of an existing record for a specified language.

Instructions

Create a new verification case record: 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 verification case record 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_vcr_schema tool (the generated JSON Schema); the get_vcr_template/get_vcr_example tools return the authoring template and a complete sample. Returns the newly created document's frontmatter only (no body); use the corresponding get_vcr 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/vcr/ 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 verification case record 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 VcrNotFoundError), and the variant is written to docs/vcr/{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 / VcrFrontmatter / properties / status / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "approved",
+  "complete",
+  "draft",
+  "progress"
+]
```
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 supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: validation failure returns a non-raising ValidateResult with valid=False and errors[].message capped at 300 chars and writes nothing; malformed language, missing/forbidden id, or absent heading-mapping table raise ValueError before any file access; an existing variant raises FileExistsError; a missing EN source raises VcrNotFoundError. It also discloses that translations get status draft, that content is persisted verbatim, 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?

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single dense paragraph salted with internal identifiers (feat-110, ADR f14f125e-eaad-..., GitHub issue #204, case 5 of ADR 519d1206) that add noise rather than invocation value. The parameter branching deserves the length, but the ticket/ADR references and nested parentheticals could be 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?

For a 3-parameter creation tool with branching language behavior, the description is complete: it covers what is written, what is returned, error conditions, overwrite protection, and where related tools fit. An output schema exists, and the description still usefully notes that only frontmatter is returned.

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 entirely, and it does: it documents `language` (default 'en', ISO 639-1-shaped two-letter code, selects a heading-mapping table), `id` (must be omitted for default language, required as the shared EN source id for translations), and `content` (validated against the language's heading table, persisted verbatim). This goes well beyond the bare schema types.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb + resource ("Create a new verification case record") and enumerates the concrete steps: assigns a fresh id, derives filename from the body's H1 title, validates content, and writes to the base directory. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_vcr_schema, get_vcr_template, get_vcr_example, and get_vcr with their respective roles.

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?

The description clearly routes the agent: use get_vcr_schema for the structure reference, get_vcr_template/get_vcr_example for authoring, and get_vcr afterward to fetch the full body since only frontmatter is returned. It also spells out the two mutually exclusive branches (default vs non-default language, with id required/omitted accordingly). It does not explicitly compare against edit/update for modifying an existing record, leaving that to inference.

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

Deploy Server