DevFlow MCP Server

adr_accept

Convert a decision.md attachment into an official ADR with automatic next number, frontmatter copy, and flow link. Idempotent: re-running returns the existing ADR.

Instructions

Accept a decision.md flow-attachment as an official ADR. Auto-assigns the next ADR number for this project, copies frontmatter, links back to the flow. Idempotent: re-calling with the same attachmentId returns the existing ADR.

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": {
      "attachmentId": "<attachmentId>"
    },
    "name": "adr_accept"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	Optional override (default: accepted)
`projectId`	No
`attachmentId`	Yes	ID of the decision.md attachment
`supersedesId`	No	Optional — ID of an ADR this one supersedes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.35.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: auto-assignment of next ADR number, copying frontmatter, linking back to the flow, and idempotency. These go beyond the minimal expectation for a creation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, behavior, and idempotency guarantee. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

For a simple acceptance tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow and idempotency. It lacks details on return format but is sufficient for basic understanding. A brief mention of error cases would improve completeness.

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 75%, with three parameters having descriptions in the schema. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, and the undocumented projectId parameter is not clarified. 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Accept a decision.md flow-attachment as an official ADR'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like adr_get, adr_list, and adr_update_status. The verb-resource combination is precise.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool (to convert a flow attachment to an ADR) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist. Given multiple related sibling tools, more context would help.

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

Deploy Server