fluig-mcp

fluig_process_attachments

List the attachments of a Fluig process request by process instance ID and target environment, so you can inspect files linked to a specific workflow request.

Instructions

Lista os anexos de uma solicitação (getAttachments).

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_attachments"
  }
}

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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says it lists attachments. It does not disclose whether the call is read-only (implied but unstated), whether it requires authentication, whether results are paginated, or what fields each attachment entry carries.

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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical API name is the only extra signal it carries.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what comes back (attachment names, ids, sizes, links) and how this differs from the download sibling. Neither is covered, so an agent must guess at the return shape and at tool selection.

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%, including a detailed explanation of the env enum and its production-vs-homologation risk, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about processInstanceId or env, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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: 'Lista os anexos de uma solicitação', plus the underlying API method (getAttachments). An agent knows this enumerates attachments of a process request. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling fluig_process_attachment_download, which operates on the same resource.

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 statement of when to use this versus fluig_process_attachment_download or any other attachment-related tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint is the verb 'Lista', which leaves routing between list and download to inference.

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

Deploy Server