biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get use case

get_uc

Retrieve a use-case document by ID, returning parsed content or raw body text with optional line-based pagination and numbering.

Instructions

Read, parse, and return a full use-case 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_uc -- 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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so unusually well: it discloses that parse failures return a ParseFailureResult rather than raising, that invalid ids raise ValueError before any file access, that offset/limit clamp silently, and which parameter combinations raise ValueError. These are exactly the edge behaviors an agent needs and none are available from 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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense wall of run-on sentences with stacked parentheticals and cross-references that are hard to parse on first read. The information largely earns its place, yet structure (e.g., bullets per parameter/mode) would make it far more scannable.

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, yet the description still pre-empts the key return-value question by naming the ParseFailureResult and its fields. For a read tool with no annotations, the coverage of modes, error paths, and downstream-usage pitfalls leaves nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning, and it does: raw switches to frontmatter-stripped body, offset is 1-based with default 1, limit defaults through end of body, out-of-range values clamp, and numbered only makes sense with raw=True. Interaction rules and ValueError conditions between parameters are spelled out explicitly.

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 specific verb and resource — 'Read, parse, and return a full use-case document (frontmatter and body) by its id' — which an agent can act on immediately. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like parse_uc, list_uc, or get_uc_template, leaving that distinction to inference.

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?

The description thoroughly explains how to drive the tool's modes (raw, offset/limit, numbered) and warns about feeding numbered output back into update/create_uc/edit, which is useful cross-tool guidance. But it never states when to choose get_uc over parse_uc or list_uc, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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

Deploy Server