biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Standard Operating Procedure

get_sop

Retrieve and parse a SOP document by ID, returning frontmatter and body; raw mode returns verbatim body text with optional offset/limit line windowing.

Instructions

Read, parse, and return a full SOP 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_sop -- 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it documents the ParseFailureResult return shape instead of raising, byte-identical error alignment with the list tool, ValueError on path-injection id before any file access, out-of-range clamping, and the cross-tool contract with update's offset. This is unusually deep behavioral 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 content is front-loaded with the core read behavior, but the single dense paragraph runs long and buries operational warnings (numbered output not to be fed back verbatim, list-tool error parity, ADR reference) mid-stream. Much of it earns its place, yet structure suffers from cramming distinct concerns into one wall of text.

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 five parameters with zero schema documentation, no annotations, and a complex dual-mode contract, the description covers parameter semantics, error behavior, clamping, numbering, and cross-tool usage. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and it covers the exception cases (ParseFailureResult) anyway.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema has only bare titles, so the description must compensate entirely. It defines raw, offset (1-based, default 1), limit (line count, default through end), and numbered (1-based absolute numbering, clamped-offset semantics, raw-only) with exact interaction rules and error conditions.

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?

States a specific verb chain (read, parse, return) and the resource (a full SOP document by id), and distinguishes the raw=True mode. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling get_sop_example or parse_sop, but the dual-mode behavior is clear.

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?

Explains when to use raw=True vs raw=False and how offset/limit/numbered interact, and explicitly warns against feeding numbered output back into update/create_sop. Lacks a direct comparison to sibling parse_sop or list_sop, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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

Deploy Server