Flower MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

fow_generate_artifacts

Schedules local rendering and stores immutable artifact generations from ledger/profile data; host publishes or saves returned artifacts separately.

Instructions

Render and retain project lifecycle documents using an existing artifact profile in a durable local job. The host publishes or saves returned artifacts separately. Single operation; call directly without an operation argument. Prerequisites: Select an existing configured artifact profile and project. Effects: Schedules local rendering and stores immutable artifact generations from ledger/profile data. No model/provider or repository publication is performed. Exact help (replace operation_name with the selected route): fow_capabilities({"view":"operation","operation_tool":"fow_generate_artifacts","operation_name":"call"}).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "profile_id": "<profile_id>",
      "actor": "<actor>"
    },
    "name": "fow_generate_artifacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`actor`	Yes	Identity of the human or agent recording this action; retain the original identity when replaying its request.
`profile_id`	Yes	Configured artifact-generation profile identity; selects rendering policy, not a model endpoint.
`project_id`	Yes	Canonical lifecycle project ID. Select the existing project explicitly; development Markdown authorities are separate from runtime projects.
`request_id`	No	Caller-owned retry identity. For receipted mutations replay the same actor and contents; changed contents can conflict. Inspect exact operation help for its receipt policy.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.5.1Oct 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / actor / description

Added value: +"Identity of the human or agent recording this action; retain the original identity when replaying its request."

addedInput schema / properties / profile_id / description

Added value: +"Configured artifact-generation profile identity; selects rendering policy, not a model endpoint."

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 / request_id / description

Added value: +"Caller-owned retry identity. For receipted mutations replay the same actor and contents; changed contents can conflict. Inspect exact operation help for its receipt policy."

First observedv0.1.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the durable local job, that stored generations are immutable, and that no model/provider call or repository publication occurs — the latter being important given openWorldHint=false. The request_id retry semantics are also surfaced. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or expected duration.

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?

The first sentence front-loads verb, resource, and mechanism, and the following lines are clearly segmented into Single operation / Prerequisites / Effects. Slightly verbose, and the long help pointer sentence is heavy, but nothing is redundant with structured fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers prerequisites, effects, non-effects, and retry behavior for a mutation with idempotentHint=false. The main gap is the missing pointer to fow_get_artifacts as the retrieval counterpart.

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 all four parameters are already documented (actor, profile_id, project_id, request_id) with meaningful semantics like 'selects rendering policy, not a model endpoint'. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond echoing that an existing profile and project must be selected, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Render and retain project lifecycle documents using an existing artifact profile in a durable local job.' It also delimits scope by noting the host publishes/saves artifacts separately, so the agent can tell rendering from publishing. It does not name the read-side sibling (fow_get_artifacts), so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

'Single operation; call directly without an operation argument' plus an explicit Prerequisites line gives clear invocation context. However, it never states when NOT to use it or which sibling to reach for instead (e.g., fow_get_artifacts for retrieval), so the when-vs-alternatives guidance is absent.

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