Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fluig-mcp

fluig-mcp

by alucardigo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

fluig_form_file

Retrieves the text content of a specific Fluig form file by document ID, version, and file name for an explicitly chosen test or production environment.

Instructions

Retorna o conteúdo (texto) de um arquivo específico do formulário.

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>",
      "version": "<version>",
      "fileName": "<fileName>",
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "fluig_form_file"
  }
}

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.
versionYesversão do form
fileNameYesnome do arquivo
documentIdYesdocumentId

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / documentId / description
      Previous value: -"Form documentId."New value: +"documentId"
    • 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 / properties / fileName / description
      Previous value: -"File name."New value: +"nome do arquivo"
    • changedInput schema / properties / version / description
      Previous value: -"Form version."New value: +"versão do form"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "documentId",
-  "version",
-  "fileName"
-]New value: +[
+  "documentId",
+  "version",
+  "fileName",
+  "env"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does hint that the return is textual ('conteúdo (texto)'), but says nothing about permissions, behavior for binary files, encoding, or what happens when documentId/version/fileName don't match.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing guidance rather than compensating for it.

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 4-required-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: it doesn't say whether the returned text is raw, base64, or something else, nor how the three identifier params interact. The schema covers parameter-level detail, so the core purpose is understandable, but the return contract is underspecified.

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% and the env enum description is especially rich (explicit no-default, prod vs teste risk), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about how documentId, version, and fileName combine to identify a file.

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+resource: returns the text content of a specific form file. It's clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like fluig_form_files (which presumably enumerates files) or fluig_ged_download, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as fluig_form_files to first discover valid file names. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'arquivo específico do formulário'.

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