fluig-mcp

fluig_process_actual_thread

Retrieves the current thread of a specified state sequence in a Fluig process instance, requiring explicit environment selection to avoid test/production confusion.

Instructions

Retorna a thread atual de um stateSequence de uma solicitação (getActualThread).

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>",
      "stateSequence": "<stateSequence>",
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "fluig_process_actual_thread"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`stateSequence`	Yes	sequência do estado
`processInstanceId`	Yes	iProcess

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 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 / properties / stateSequence / description

Previous value: -"State sequence."New value: +"sequência do estado"

changedInput schema / required

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

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Retorna" weakly implies a read operation, but nothing is said about permissions, whether a state must be active, side effects, or what the returned thread looks like. For a tool that appears read-only but is used inside workflow debugging, the safety profile is left entirely to inference.

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 edges toward under-specification rather than optimal density.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description should tell the agent what a "thread" contains and how to use the result. With three required parameters and no annotation coverage, leaving return semantics and usage context unaddressed is a substantive gap.

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 parameter in particular is documented thoroughly with production-safety guidance. The description adds nothing about the three required 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.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It states a specific verb and resource ("Retorna a thread atual de um stateSequence de uma solicitação") and cites the underlying API (getActualThread). However, "thread" is undefined jargon and nothing distinguishes it from closely named siblings like fluig_process_states, fluig_process_active_states, or fluig_process_history, so the agent must already know Fluig semantics.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus fluig_process_history or the other state-related siblings, and no prerequisites or preconditions are stated. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server