biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get problem statement

get_prb

Read and parse a full problem statement document by its id, or fetch the frontmatter-stripped body text verbatim when raw is true.

Instructions

Read, parse, and return a full problem statement 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_prb -- 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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose parse-failure behavior (returns ParseFailureResult instead of raising), ValueError conditions for invalid ids and parameter combinations, clamping of out-of-range offsets, and the numbered-line caveat about not feeding output back into content. That is substantial behavioral disclosure, though it could mention permissions or file-access timing more explicitly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single very dense, run-on paragraph that is difficult to parse. Multiple unrelated behaviors (parse failure representation, id validation, numbered line format, update/content feedback warnings) are packed into one block without front-loading the primary use case. It is thorough but lacks structural separation, hurting readability.

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?

Given five parameters, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers return-shape variations, error modes, parameter interactions, and cross-tool usage warnings. It omits any note about when the output schema applies versus raw=True, and does not mention potential rate limits or performance considerations, but those are minor given the tool's apparent nature.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: offset is defined as 1-based first body line, limit as line count, raw as frontmatter-stripped toggle, and numbered as a line-prefix option meaningful only with raw=True. It explains default and interaction semantics for all four optional parameters, though it does not fully specify the format of id (`id` is only described by example).

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 description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read, parse, and return a full problem statement document (frontmatter and body) by its id.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like parse_prb and list_prb by specifying that it returns the parsed document, and clearly states the alternative behavior with raw=True (stripped body verbatim).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains when raw=True should be used (to get stripped body text) and when offset/limit apply, but it does not explicitly say when to choose get_prb over alternatives like parse_prb or get_prb_template, nor does it state any prerequisites. Usage is implied by the parameter interactions rather than an explicit when-to-use rubric.

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

Deploy Server