Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fluig-mcp

fluig-mcp

by alucardigo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

fluig_deploy_list

Lists Fluig processes available for export or deploy via SOAP WorkflowEngineService, helping validate deployments and round-trip checks for test or production environments.

Instructions

Lista os processos disponíveis para export/deploy no servidor (via SOAP WorkflowEngineService + token). Útil p/ validar o deploy e para o round-trip de validação.

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": {
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "fluig_deploy_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
envYesOBRIGATÓRIO. Ambiente alvo: "teste" (homologação, o host de FLUIG_HOST) ou "prod" (PRODUÇÃO REAL, o host de FLUIG_HOST_PROD). Não há default: a escolha é sempre explícita, para que ninguém leia homologação achando que é produção nem escreva em produção achando que é teste.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / env
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "OBRIGATÓRIO. Ambiente alvo: \"teste\" (homologação, o host de FLUIG_HOST) ou \"prod\" (PRODUÇÃO REAL, o host de FLUIG_HOST_PROD). Não há default: a escolha é sempre explícita, para que ninguém leia homologação achando que é produção nem escreva em produção achando que é teste.",
+  "enum": [
+    "teste",
+    "prod"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[]New value: +[
+  "env"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the transport (SOAP) and that a token is required, which is real behavioral context. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether it touches prod vs test hosts, or what the response shape is — gaps that matter for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds mechanism and use-case. No filler, though the parenthetical mechanism detail could be trimmed for a pure listing tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers what the tool does and why. It is still thin on what the returned list contains (names, versions, ids) and on the prod-read risk, which an agent would want before selecting it.

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 coverage is 100% and the `env` enum is documented with unusually strong guidance about test vs prod. The description adds nothing about `env` beyond "no servidor", so it neither compensates nor detracts — 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 ("Lista") and resource ("processos disponíveis para export/deploy"), plus the mechanism (SOAP WorkflowEngineService + token). It implies a distinction from fluig_deploy_process and fluig_process_versions by scoping to 'available for export/deploy', but never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

"Útil p/ validar o deploy e para o round-trip de validação" gives a usage hint, so the agent knows this is a pre-flight/verification step. However, it does not say when to prefer this over fluig_process_versions or fluig_deploy_process, nor any prerequisites beyond a token.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools