fluig-mcp

fluig_process_cancel

Cancels or ends a Fluig process instance through cancelInstance SOAP, requiring explicit confirmation and target environment (test or production).

Instructions

⚠️ CANCELA/encerra uma solicitação (cancelInstance SOAP). Escrita — exige confirm=true. Assinatura validada ao vivo (o servidor de homologação 1.8.2).

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>",
      "cancelText": "<cancelText>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>",
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "fluig_process_cancel"
  }
}

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.
`confirm`	Yes
`cancelText`	Yes	motivo do cancelamento
`processInstanceId`	Yes	iProcess

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv1.3.0Nov 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / cancelText / description

Previous value: -"Reason for cancelling."New value: +"motivo do cancelamento"

removedInput schema / properties / confirm / description

Removed value: -"Must be true to actually perform the operation."

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",
-  "cancelText",
-  "confirm"
-]New value: +[
+  "processInstanceId",
+  "cancelText",
+  "confirm",
+  "env"
+]

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that this is a write/destructive operation requiring confirmation and that it wraps the cancelInstance SOAP call validated against a 1.8.2 server. It stops short of stating irreversibility, required permission level, or what happens to open tasks and attachments after cancellation.

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 with the warning marker and destructive nature front-loaded, followed by the hard precondition. Nothing is padded, and the most decision-relevant facts (write, needs confirm) come first.

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 destructive, four-required-parameter mutation with zero annotations and no output schema, the description establishes action, method, and the confirm gate but omits the consequences of success (state changes to tasks/attachments), permission requirements, and error behavior — gaps an agent would want before firing an irreversible write.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, and the one bare parameter (confirm, an undescribed boolean) is explained in the description as needing to be true, closing the gap. The remaining parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description adds meaning where it is actually missing rather than repeating it.

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 pair (CANCELA/encerra) and resource (solicitação), plus the underlying SOAP method cancelInstance, so an agent can immediately tell it terminates a process instance rather than moving or starting one. It does not name a sibling to contrast with, but the purpose is unambiguous against the many read-oriented fluig_process_* tools.

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?

Provides one concrete precondition — 'Escrita — exige confirm=true' — which tells the agent it must set the confirm flag. However, it gives no guidance on when cancellation is appropriate versus alternatives such as fluig_process_move or fluig_process_states, no eligibility constraints (active vs. closed requests), and no when-not-to-use warning.

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

Deploy Server