Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fluig-mcp

fluig-mcp

by alucardigo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

fluig_process_available_users

Retrieve users eligible to receive a task in a given process instance state, with explicit test or production environment selection.

Instructions

Usuários aptos a receber a tarefa num estado da solicitação (getAvailableUsers).

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>",
      "state": "<state>",
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "fluig_process_available_users"
  }
}

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.
stateYesnº do estado
threadSequenceNothreadSequence (opcional, default 0)
processInstanceIdYesiProcess

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • 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 / state / description
      Previous value: -"State number."New value: +"nº do estado"
    • changedInput schema / properties / threadSequence / description
      Previous value: -"threadSequence (optional, default 0)."New value: +"threadSequence (opcional, default 0)"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "processInstanceId",
-  "state"
-]New value: +[
+  "processInstanceId",
+  "state",
+  "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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether it requires an assigned task, what the return shape is (presumably a user list), or how 'apto' is determined. The only behavioral hint is the parenthetical API method name, which helps developers but not agents.

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 no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient rather than padded, though it is arguably too terse for a four-parameter tool with no annotations.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the return value (a list of eligible users), whether an empty result is possible, and how it differs from the *_start variant. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to predict the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does tie the tool to 'state' and the process instance implicitly, but it adds no semantics beyond what the schema already documents for processInstanceId, state, threadSequence and env.

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?

The description names a specific resource (users eligible to receive a task) and a specific scope (a given state of a process instance), plus the underlying API method getAvailableUsers. It is clear what the tool does, but it draws no boundary against close siblings such as fluig_process_available_users_start or fluig_process_possible_assignees, which read almost identically from an agent's perspective.

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 use this tool versus the near-duplicate siblings (fluig_process_available_users_start, fluig_process_available, fluig_process_possible_assignees). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context beyond the one-line purpose.

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