biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get risk

get_rsk

Retrieve and parse a risk document by ID to access its full frontmatter and body; optionally read raw text, window lines, number them, or select a language variant.

Instructions

Read, parse, and return a full risk 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_rsk -- strip the "<n>: " prefix from each line first (it is likewise never a valid edit old_str). The optional language parameter (default 'en') selects the language variant to read: omitted/'en' = the flat docs/rsk/ document, exactly the default behavior; any other ISO 639-1-shaped lowercase two-letter code (e.g. 'de') = that language's variant at docs/rsk/{language}/ (the EN source's exact basename). The language is shape-validated before any file access (a path-injection-shaped payload is a ValueError, like an invalid id), and a shape-valid language without a packaged heading-mapping table is rejected up front with an actionable ValueError, also before any file access. A raw=True read of a variant returns the variant's on-disk body verbatim (translation preserved); a raw=False read parses it through the variant's heading table, so the structured model holds canonical heading text. The ParseFailureResult error of a broken variant is byte-identical to list_rsk(language=...)'s failed row for the same file.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`id`	Yes
`raw`	No
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`language`	No	en
`numbered`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.38.0Nov 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / language

Added value: +{
+  "default": "en",
+  "title": "Language",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.37.0Oct 24, 2026
- addedOutput schema / $defs / Impact / pattern
```
Added value: +"^Impact [1-5]$"
```
- addedOutput schema / $defs / Probability / pattern
```
Added value: +"^Probability [1-5]$"
```
- addedOutput schema / $defs / RskFrontmatter / properties / status / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "accepted",
+  "closed",
+  "dropped",
+  "mitigating",
+  "occurred",
+  "open"
+]
```
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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses parse-failure return behavior, invalid-id ValueErrors before file access, clamping semantics, invalid option combinations, and language validation failures. It also warns that numbered output must not be fed back verbatim into update or create_rsk, which is valuable safety context beyond structured fields.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the body becomes a dense wall of edge-case prose with some repeated parse-failure and ValueError details. Most content is useful for correct invocation, yet the lack of paragraphing and the compression of many conditions into long sentences make it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

Given six parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that handles return structure, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers the important behavioral edge cases an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial and error.

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 define all six parameters, and it does: id, raw, offset, limit, numbered, and language each receive concrete semantics including defaults, 1-based line numbering, clamping behavior, and valid combinations. The detail on numbered line numbers and language variant paths goes well beyond 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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb, resource, and scope: read, parse, and return a full risk document by id, with the raw=True alternative explicitly contrasted. An agent can distinguish the structured read from the raw-body read without inspecting the 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?

The description clearly explains when to use raw=True versus the default structured read, how language variants are selected, and when offset/limit/numbered apply. It does not explicitly route the agent among sibling tools such as list_rsk or parse_rsk, but the retrieval-by-id context is otherwise clear.

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

Deploy Server