Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fluig-mcp

fluig-mcp

by alucardigo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

fluig_process_card_get

Retrieves all card data for an in-progress Fluig process instance so it can be resubmitted intact before a process move, which replaces the card.

Instructions

Lê TODO o cardData de uma solicitação em andamento (getInstanceCardData) -> {campo:valor}. Use antes de fluig_process_move p/ reenviar o card completo (o move SUBSTITUI o card).

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_card_get"
  }
}

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.
processInstanceIdYesiProcess

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 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 / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "processInstanceId"
-]New value: +[
+  "processInstanceId",
+  "env"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description still conveys that this is a read ("Lê"), that its scope is limited to requests "em andamento", that it returns the full field map, and that the paired move operation is destructive to existing card content. It leaves out failure modes (e.g. what happens on a closed/canceled request) and authentication expectations, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, both dense with actionable content: the scope/return shape first, then the operational rule with its justification. No filler and no restating of the tool name.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape and the critical interaction with fluig_process_move. The main gap is edge-case behavior on non-active requests, which an agent might need before calling blindly.

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%, and the env parameter is documented at length in the schema itself, so the schema already carries parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about processInstanceId or env, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ("Lê TODO o cardData de uma solicitação em andamento"), names the underlying API (getInstanceCardData) and the return shape ({campo:valor}). The "TODO" scope marker implicitly separates it from the single-value sibling fluig_process_card_value, and it explicitly positions itself against fluig_process_move.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit usage condition: call this before fluig_process_move when resending the full card, and explains the reason ("o move SUBSTITUI o card"). That is a concrete workflow rule an agent can act on without inferring anything.

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