get_decisions_for_context
Retrieve curated engineering decisions for a file or task. Use before writing code to adopt team conventions, preferred patterns, and avoid rejected approaches.
Instructions
Fetch the team's canonical engineering decisions for a file/area and task.
Call this FIRST, before writing or editing code in an area — and again when you
move to a new file or module. It surfaces the conventions, preferred patterns,
rejected approaches, and known gotchas the team has already curated for that part
of the codebase, so you write code that matches their standards on the first try
instead of rediscovering them. Read the returned decisions and comply with them.
Behavior: only human-approved (canonical) decisions are returned, ranked by how
well their scope matches `file_path_or_area` and by how helpful past agents
rated them. Each call also records a usage event so your later `submit_feedback`
can be tied back to this exact result set.
Returns a plain-text block. The first line is a header carrying the query token
and server revision; then each decision is numbered for rating by index, e.g.:
metatron:query 7f3a... · rev 0.2.1 (reference the query id in submit_feedback)
[1] [high] Use internal.http for outbound calls, not the requests library
scope: src/services/**
why: flaky network caused phantom 5xx errors; the internal client retries
Keep the query token: pass it to `submit_feedback` after the task to rate the
decisions by their `[index]`. If nothing is registered for the area, the body is
exactly "No matching decisions." — proceed normally.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path_or_area | Yes | The file path, directory, or architectural area you are about to work in (e.g. "src/routes/api/users.py" or "billing"). | |
| task_description | Yes | A short description of what you are about to do there (e.g. "add error handling to the billing webhook"). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |