Flower MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

fow_campaign_inspect

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect a governed test campaign's scope, cases, obligations, Oracle contracts, attestations, evidence, residuals, or history in read-only mode without progressing it.

Instructions

Inspect one campaign scope, cases, obligations, Oracle contracts, attestations, evidence, residuals or history without progressing it. Route with view: summary, working_sheet, cases, obligations, oracles, constructibility, oracle_ir, attestation, evidence, residuals, history. Prerequisites: Use the campaign ID and optional owning change for scope validation. Effects: Read-only summary, cases, Oracle/evidence/residuals or history page. No provider/model calls, materialization or acceptance. Exact help (replace operation_name with the selected route): fow_capabilities({"view":"operation","operation_tool":"fow_campaign_inspect","operation_name":"summary"}).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view`	No	Read projection selector; canonical view names depend on this tool. Canonical values: summary, working_sheet, cases, obligations, oracles, constructibility, oracle_ir, attestation, evidence, residuals, history.	summary
`limit`	No	Maximum number of records in this read page; existing route-specific bounds still apply.
`offset`	No	Zero-based position of the first record in this bounded read page.
`change_id`	No	Canonical owning change ID; when address resolution permits omission, the packet/campaign must resolve unambiguously.
`project_id`	Yes	Canonical lifecycle project ID. Select the existing project explicitly; development Markdown authorities are separate from runtime projects.
`campaign_id`	No	Identifier of the governed test campaign, as returned by campaign authoring.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.5.1Oct 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / campaign_id / description

Added value: +"Identifier of the governed test campaign, as returned by campaign authoring."

addedInput schema / properties / change_id / description

Added value: +"Canonical owning change ID; when address resolution permits omission, the packet/campaign must resolve unambiguously."

addedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Added value: +"Maximum number of records in this read page; existing route-specific bounds still apply."

addedInput schema / properties / offset / description

Added value: +"Zero-based position of the first record in this bounded read page."

addedInput schema / properties / project_id / description

Added value: +"Canonical lifecycle project ID. Select the existing project explicitly; development Markdown authorities are separate from runtime projects."

addedInput schema / properties / view / description

Added value: +"Read projection selector; canonical view names depend on this tool. Canonical values: summary, working_sheet, cases, obligations, oracles, constructibility, oracle_ir, attestation, evidence, residuals, history."

addedInput schema / properties / view / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "summary"
+]
```

First observedv0.1.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false. The description adds meaningful non-effects beyond those: it does not progress the campaign and makes no provider/model calls, materialization, or acceptance.

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-loads the purpose, then routes, prerequisites, effects, and an exact-help pointer. It is dense but each line earns its place; the help pointer is useful for view-specific semantics, though the overall block is longer than strictly minimal.

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?

For a six-parameter, multi-view read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, prerequisites, effects, and points to exact help for route details. Return values are handled by the output schema, so no critical gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the canonical view values. The description adds slight purpose for campaign_id/change_id via 'scope validation,' but limit/offset and address-resolution behavior remain schema-only, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('one campaign') plus the inspectable aspects. The phrase 'without progressing it' distinguishes it from fow_campaign_advance, so an agent can select it without opening another 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?

Gives clear routing via view values and prerequisites ('Use the campaign ID and optional owning change for scope validation'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as fow_campaign_advance or fow_packet_inspect, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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