biz.dfch.SpecMgr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List risks

list_rsk

Lists risks from the configured risk base directory with IDs, titles, statuses, references, and 5x5 levels, plus glob filtering, language selection, and paging for review before fetching by ID.

Instructions

Ids, titles, statuses, and refs of risks in the configured risk base directory, one page at a time, for context before addressing one by id. Each line also carries the initial/residual 5x5 zone levels, the TARA strategy word, the first ## Scope entry, and the residual-risk coordinates (residual_probability/residual_impact/residual_product). 'ref' is an opaque, extensionless identifier -- not a filename to read from disk -- for documents that have no assigned id; use it with the get_rsk tool instead. An optional glob pattern (e.g. 'dead*') filters the listing to the risks whose id matches it, case-insensitively; glob=None (the default) lists everything, and an empty string matches nothing. max_results/offset control paging (default page size 25, capped at 100); out-of-range values are clamped, not errored. The optional language parameter (default 'en') selects the directory scanned: omitted/'en' = the flat docs/rsk/ directory (the default behavior, unchanged); any other ISO 639-1-shaped lowercase two-letter code (e.g. 'de') = only that language's docs/rsk/{language}/ subdirectory, listing exactly the existing variants of that language (there is deliberately no 'all languages' mode). The language is shape-validated before any file access (an invalid-shaped value 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.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`glob`	No
`offset`	No
`language`	No	en
`max_results`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	Yes
`offset`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`truncated`	Yes
`error_count`	No
`max_results`	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"
+}

First observedv0.36.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses paging semantics (default 25, cap 100, clamping instead of erroring), case-insensitive glob matching, that an empty string matches nothing, and that invalid-shaped languages or missing heading-mapping tables raise ValueError before any file access. It does not mention permission requirements or whether reads are side-effect free, which leaves a small gap for a no-annotation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose and return fields before the parameter detail, and nearly every clause adds information. It is a single dense run-on block, though, and asides like 'there is deliberately no "all languages" mode' and '(the default behavior, unchanged)' add length without much decision value.

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 four undocumented-in-schema parameters, no annotations, and moderate complexity, the description covers behavior, filtering, paging, language directory selection, and error conditions. An output schema exists, so the absence of a return-format section is not a gap.

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%, yet the description defines all four parameters: glob (pattern semantics, None default, empty-string edge case, case-insensitivity), max_results/offset (paging, defaults, cap, clamping), and language (default 'en', which directory it selects, shape validation, and the absence of an 'all languages' mode). This is more than the schema provides and fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list ... risks') plus the exact fields returned (ids, titles, statuses, refs, zone levels, TARA strategy, scope, residual coordinates) and the scoping ('configured risk base directory, one page at a time'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_rsk by positioning itself as context 'before addressing one by id'.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('for context before addressing one by id') and explicitly routes the opaque 'ref' identifier to get_rsk rather than disk access. It explains when to use the glob filter and when to use the language parameter, but stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming list_rsk's relationship to parse_rsk/list_languages.

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

Deploy Server