fluig-mcp

fluig_process_active_states

Retrieves the active BPM states for a Fluig process instance in a specified environment, showing where the request is currently waiting.

Instructions

Lista os estados ATIVOS (nós onde a solicitação está agora) — getAllActiveStates.

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": {
      "processInstanceId": "<processInstanceId>",
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "fluig_process_active_states"
  }
}

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.
`processInstanceId`	Yes	iProcess

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.3.0Nov 2, 2026

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 / processInstanceId / description
```
Previous value: -"Instance number."New value: +"iProcess"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "processInstanceId"
-]New value: +[
+  "processInstanceId",
+  "env"
+]

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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 does disclose the key behavioral concept (these are the nodes where the request currently sits), which is genuinely useful, but it omits that this is a read-only operation, what happens with an invalid/closed instance, and any permission requirements.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the capability and appends the underlying API method name for traceability. Nothing is redundant.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin. It never indicates the shape of the returned state list (ids, names, assignees) or whether an empty result is possible, which would help an agent interpret the response since no output schema exists.

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%: the env enum is documented in detail (teste vs prod, no default) and processInstanceId maps to iProcess. The description adds nothing about the parameters beyond what the schema already states, so the 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?

Uses a specific verb ("Lista") with a clearly scoped resource ("estados ATIVOS") and clarifies the concept as "nós onde a solicitação está agora," which an agent can distinguish from history/state-list siblings. It does not explicitly name the near-neighbors (fluig_process_states, fluig_process_states_detail, fluig_process_actual_thread), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch the current nodes for a given process instance. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives like fluig_process_states or fluig_process_history, and no note on prerequisites such as the request still being open.

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

Deploy Server