biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get decision

get_dec

Read and parse a decision document by ID, returning frontmatter and body or raw body text. Optionally window or number raw body lines using offset, limit, and numbered.

Instructions

Read, parse, and return a full decision document (frontmatter and body) by its id. Pass raw=True to return the frontmatter-stripped body text verbatim instead. With raw=True, optional read-style offset/limit window the raw read: offset (1-based, default 1) is the first body line to return, limit (line count, default through end of body) how many; out-of-range values clamp (offset > N returns the empty string), and coordinates with raw=False raise ValueError. A document that exists but fails to parse returns a ParseFailureResult (error/path/id) instead of raising; its error text is byte-identical to the domain's own list tool's failed-row error for the same file (identical field path and cause, including the trailing pydantic documentation line; ADR 9080b37c-82b3-4f63-81f1-79641d0bf14c). An invalid id (path-injection attempt or wrong format) is also a ValueError, raised before any file access. With raw=True, an optional numbered=True prefixes every returned body line with its 1-based absolute body-line number in the "<n>: " form (plain decimal, no padding) -- under offset/limit windowing the numbers start at the clamped offset and never restart at 1, so a number seen in the output can be fed straight back into the generic update tool's offset. numbered is meaningful only with raw=True: combining it with raw=False raises ValueError (like offset/limit), and a numbered read of a document that fails to parse returns the ParseFailureResult described above, never numbered text. Numbered output must never be fed back verbatim into content for update or create_dec -- strip the "<n>: " prefix from each line first (it is likewise never a valid edit old_str).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`raw`	No
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`numbered`	No

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 does so thoroughly: invalid ids raise ValueError before any file access, out-of-range offset/limit clamp (offset > N returns empty string), parse failures return a ParseFailureResult rather than raising, and note/body numbering never restarts under windowing. It also discloses cross-tool consistency of error text, which exceeds typical disclosure.

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 is front-loaded in sentence one, but the rest is a single dense paragraph packed with asides — an ADR UUID, a note about a trailing pydantic documentation line, byte-identical error text across tools. These details crowd out scannability and do not all earn their place for an agent trying to call the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is optional, yet the description still covers the meaningful output variants (raw body, numbered lines, ParseFailureResult). For a 5-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, nothing an agent needs to call 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: id (lookup by id), raw (frontmatter-stripped verbatim mode), offset (1-based, default 1), limit (line count, default through end), numbered (prefix format '<n>: ', absolute body-line numbers). Defaults, units, and interaction rules are all stated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence gives a precise verb+resource+identifier: 'Read, parse, and return a full decision document (frontmatter and body) by its id.' The raw=True branch is also defined as a distinct mode. However, it never contrasts itself with nearby siblings such as parse_dec, get_dec_template, or get_dec_example, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name.

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 conditional guidance: use raw=True for verbatim frontmatter-stripped body text, offset/limit for windowed reads, numbered when line numbers are needed for `update`'s offset. The 'when-not' is present for parameter combinations (numbered/offset/limit with raw=False raise ValueError) and for feeding numbered output into content/old_str. No explicit alternative-tool routing among siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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

Deploy Server