
Ownership Attestation Protocol
io.github.bg4ff8mtdn-dotcom由 GitHub 账号 bg4ff8mtdn-dotcom 发布v1.0.1更新于 Oct 25, 2026
MCP protocol enforcing explicit task acceptance and attestation-tagged completion claims.
概览
一个本地 MCP 服务器,用于跟踪任务归属,并要求每次完成声明都附带来源标签(observed、reviewed 或 reported)。
- 可以做什么
- 创建初始无归属的任务,只有显式接受后才算有主,若已有其他归属者会以原子方式拒绝。报告完成时必须提供来源值,缺失即拒绝;把 reported 声明升级为 observed 时若无来源引用也会被拒绝。交接任务时保存冻结的状态快照,接收方需自行接受归属。查看单个任务的接受、声明与交接完整历史,并列出仍无归属者的任务。
- 适用场景
- 适合在多个智能体或人员之间协调工作,并希望可查询地记录谁接受了什么、每条完成声明是如何核实的场景。更适合实验和小规模部署,而非生产级治理。
- 运行要求
- 以 stdio 或 HTTP 在本地运行,需要 Node.js 24、PostgreSQL 和 pnpm。需要设置 DATABASE_URL 和 MCP_ACCESS_TOKEN 环境变量,令牌通过 Authorization 请求头以 bearer 形式发送。调用任何工具前数据库中必须至少存在一个 actor,README 提供了本地开发用的种子脚本。
安装
在 SourceWeft 中
- 打开 控制台中的 Ownership Attestation Protocol,将其添加到工作区。
- 为需要使用其工具的对话启用该服务。
Desktop only,通过 STDIO。 STDIO 服务会启动本地进程,因此需要 SourceWeft 桌面宿主。
其他 MCP 客户端
参照 仓库 中的启动说明。
README
Ownership & Attestation Protocol (OAP)
A small MCP protocol that enforces two rules no mainstream agent framework currently enforces natively:
- A task isn't owned until it's explicitly accepted. Assignment, inference, or ambient context aren't enough — an actor (human or AI agent) must explicitly accept a task before it counts as theirs.
- No completion claim can be reported without saying how the reporting actor knows it's true. Every "this is done" claim carries a mandatory provenance tag:
Observed(I did this myself),Reviewed(I checked evidence of it), orReported(I'm relaying what I was told). There is no fourth option, and there is no way to report completion without picking one.
That's the whole protocol. Everything else in this repo exists in service of those two rules.
Why this exists
Broken ownership handoffs are a commonly cited failure mode in production multi-agent systems — an agent hands work to another agent, context gets lost, and nobody ends up owning the result. Separately, a March 2026 paper on agent identity protocols (Prakash, AIP: Agent Identity Protocol for Verifiable Delegation Across MCP and A2A, arXiv:2603.24775) reports that in the authors' survey, they did not identify a prior implemented protocol that jointly combines verifiable delegation, attenuated authorization, and provenance-oriented completion records.
This project was built to test a narrow, specific fix for both problems at once — not a full governance platform, not an evaluation framework, just the ownership/acceptance and attestation mechanics.
Real-world motivation
Two documented, public incidents shaped this design directly:
- A Replit AI coding agent deleted a production database during an active code freeze, then falsely claimed rollback was impossible — a claim stated with full confidence that was never actually verified. Rollback worked fine once someone actually tried it. (AI Incident Database, Incident #1152)
- Air Canada's chatbot gave a customer incorrect eligibility details for its own bereavement-fare policy, telling him he could claim the discount retroactively when the actual policy required approval before travel. A tribunal ruled the airline liable — establishing that companies own what their AI tells people, whether or not a human ever reviewed the claim first. (Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149, British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal)
Both failures are the same shape: a claim stated with more confidence than it had earned. That's the specific thing this protocol is built to catch — not by making agents smarter, but by making it structurally impossible to report a claim without saying how it was actually verified.
The six MCP tools
Protocol invariants
These six statements hold in any conformant implementation, at all times:
- Every task has zero or one current owner.
- Ownership changes only through explicit Acceptance.
- Every completion claim has exactly one provenance value.
- Provenance values never become "more certain" without new evidence — an actor cannot upgrade a Reported claim to Observed without an intervening act of verification. This implementation enforces that by rejecting an
observedclaim that supersedes areportedone on the same task unless the call supplies asourceReferencenaming what was verified. Downgrades, corrections in the other direction, and first claims are unaffected. - Every handoff captures a state snapshot.
- Every task's history is fully reconstructable.
An implementation is OAP-conformant if it requires explicit acceptance, rejects claims without provenance, supports all three provenance categories, preserves reconstructable history, and supports ownership transfer via handoff. Partial implementations should describe themselves as "OAP-inspired," not conformant.
Why not just use logs / Git / OpenTelemetry / Temporal?
Fair question, and the short answer is that OAP is meant to sit alongside these, not replace them:
- Logs record what happened passively, after the fact. OAP requires an active commitment before a claim is accepted as complete.
- Git versions content and records who committed what, but has no concept of an accepted, ongoing obligation separate from the artifact itself.
- OpenTelemetry propagates context through a distributed trace excellently, but has no schema concept equivalent to a provenance tag on a claim of correctness.
- Temporal / durable execution engines solve state persistence and reliable resumption extremely well — this reference implementation is meant to be built on top of something like that, not reinvent it. But durable execution answers "did this step run," not "did the actor own this task by explicit acceptance, and how do we know its completion claim is true."
Running it locally
Requirements: Node.js 24, PostgreSQL, pnpm.
Set the required environment variables:
Push the schema and start the API server:
Create at least one actor before calling any tool. Every tool takes an
actor id, and every one of them requires that actor to already exist — the
actor columns are NOT NULL foreign keys. The protocol deliberately has no
create_actor tool or route: actor identity is an input to OAP, not something
OAP issues, so on a real deployment actors come from whatever system already
owns identity. That means a freshly pushed database has no actors in it and
the first create_task call will fail with a 404 until you add one. For local
development there is a seed script:
It is a plain script, not part of the protocol surface — it is never imported by the server and is not reachable over HTTP.
The MCP server is mounted at /mcp and requires the MCP_ACCESS_TOKEN as a bearer token in the Authorization header on every request except /api/healthz, which stays open for health checks.
Connect a real MCP client (e.g. Claude Code):
Running the tests
The suite covers the protocol's concurrency guarantees, so it needs a real PostgreSQL instance — it exercises genuinely simultaneous transactions and cannot run against an in-process or single-connection substitute.
Tests connect to postgresql://opp:[email protected]:55432/opp_test by
default. Point them elsewhere with OPP_TEST_DATABASE_URL, and push the schema
to that database first. The runner ignores DATABASE_URL entirely and
refuses to start against any non-loopback host: the suite truncates every table
between tests, and inheriting a real connection string would destroy exactly the
provenance record this protocol exists to protect.
Status
This is an early, personally-tested project, not a polished product. It has been built and adversarially tested by hand — concurrency races, malformed inputs, ownership-bypass attempts — and verified end-to-end with a real external MCP client completing the full protocol handshake against a live deployment. The ownership and attestation guarantees that hand-testing covered are now pinned by an automated suite that runs the races concurrently against a real database. It has not been used by anyone beyond its author, and no claims are made about production-readiness beyond what's described above. If you use this and find something that breaks, or a case the invariants don't cover, please open an issue.
License
MIT
来源:README.md,提交 aeed118
工具
0版本历史
1- v1.0.1最新Sep 16, 2026
评分
已满足适用检查项的 50%
该评分衡量此收录条目的完整程度,依据注册中心条目、端点与公开来源计算得出。它不是对服务器本身的评价,也不表示服务器安全或当前可用:可连通性是带日期的检查结果,评分也不包含安装量或用户评价。
- 近 30 天内可连通25 分
请保持端点能够响应 MCP 握手;SourceWeft 每 30 天探测一次。
- 已声明认证方式10 分
请在注册中心条目中声明凭据请求头,或保持端点能够响应探测,以便判定其认证方式。
- 已列出工具15 分
请让服务器在无凭据时响应 tools/list,或发布可在沙箱中无凭据启动的软件包。
- 描述必需15 分
- 图标10 分
- 文档15 分
- 许可证10 分