Flower MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

fow_record_verification

Records actual verification evidence for a requirement—method, outcome, reference, and metadata—so results are logged without running tests or approving acceptance.

Instructions

Record evidence actually obtained for a requirement, including verification method, outcome, reference and declared metadata. This records a result rather than running a test. Single operation; call directly without an operation argument. Prerequisites: Use an existing requirement and evidence actually obtained by the declared verification method. Effects: Appends declared evidence/provenance. It does not execute tests, audit a provider or grant acceptance. Exact help (replace operation_name with the selected route): fow_capabilities({"view":"operation","operation_tool":"fow_record_verification","operation_name":"call"}).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`actor`	Yes	Identity of the human or agent recording this action; retain the original identity when replaying its request.
`outcome`	Yes	Declared verification result, preserving failed or unexecuted obligations as such. Canonical values: passed, failed, partial.
`metadata`	No	Declared verification metadata, such as provenance and execution details; not independent proof of the result.
`reference`	Yes	Locator/reference of actual verification evidence; evidence provenance remains explicitly declared.
`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.
`requirement_id`	Yes	Existing canonical requirement identity, as returned by registration/import.
`verification_kind`	Yes	Canonical verification category identifying how the declared requirement evidence was obtained. Canonical values: tested_deterministically, tested_live.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 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 / metadata / description

Added value: +"Declared verification metadata, such as provenance and execution details; not independent proof of the result."

addedInput schema / properties / outcome / description

Added value: +"Declared verification result, preserving failed or unexecuted obligations as such. Canonical values: passed, failed, partial."

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 / reference / description

Added value: +"Locator/reference of actual verification evidence; evidence provenance remains explicitly declared."

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."

addedInput schema / properties / requirement_id / description

Added value: +"Existing canonical requirement identity, as returned by registration/import."

addedInput schema / properties / verification_kind / description

Added value: +"Canonical verification category identifying how the declared requirement evidence was obtained. Canonical values: tested_deterministically, tested_live."

First observedv0.1.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation; the description is consistent and goes further by saying it 'appends declared evidence/provenance' and explicitly disclaims test execution, provider auditing, and acceptance granting. Retry/receipt behavior is only gestured at ('inspect exact operation help'), leaving idempotency semantics thin given idempotentHint=false.

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 purpose followed by labeled Prerequisites/Effects blocks, which is easy for an agent to scan. The trailing 'Exact help' pointer with a literal fow_capabilities call is useful but adds length; overall every block earns its place.

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 no explanation, and the description covers purpose, prerequisites, effects, and single-operation invocation. Given 8 parameters and a retry/receipt surface implied by request_id, the reliance on external operation help for receipt policy is the only real gap.

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% across all 8 parameters, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description echoes the key inputs (verification method, outcome, reference, declared metadata) and reinforces that evidence must be 'actually obtained', but adds no format, enum, or constraint detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is 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 and resource (record evidence obtained for a requirement) plus the concrete payload it captures (method, outcome, reference, metadata). The sentence 'This records a result rather than running a test' actively distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings such as fow_run or fow_assurance, so an agent can route without opening the 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?

Provides explicit prerequisites (an existing requirement and evidence actually obtained by the declared verification method) and boundary conditions (does not execute tests, audit a provider, or grant acceptance). It also routes to fow_capabilities for exact operation help. It stops short of naming the sibling tool to use instead when the goal is actually running a test, which would make the when-not guidance complete.

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