fluig-mcp

fluig_form_events

Retrieves customization events such as displayFields and validateForm for a specified Fluig form, helping inspect or debug form behavior across test and production environments.

Instructions

Retorna os eventos de customização de um formulário (displayFields, validateForm, etc.).

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": {
      "documentId": "<documentId>",
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "fluig_form_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`env`	Yes	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.
`documentId`	Yes	documentId do formulário

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.3.0Nov 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / documentId / description

Previous value: -"Form documentId."New value: +"documentId do formulário"

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: -[
-  "documentId"
-]New value: +[
+  "documentId",
+  "env"
+]

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation and gives examples of the event names returned, but never states explicitly that it is read-only, what shape the response takes, or whether it fails if the form has no customization events.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, front-loading the verb and resource. Nothing in it is redundant or padding.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is close, but without an output schema the description should say more about what is returned (a list of event names? code bodies?), which it only hints at with two examples.

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%, with the env parameter documented in detail including the homologation-vs-production warning. The description adds nothing beyond the schema for documentId or env, so 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: 'Retorna os eventos de customização de um formulário', with parenthetical examples (displayFields, validateForm) that make the concept concrete. It is distinguishable from siblings like fluig_form_fields or fluig_form_full, though the difference is implied rather than stated explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No indication of when to use this tool versus fluig_form_fields, fluig_form_full, or fluig_form_files, and no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server