Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fluig-mcp

fluig-mcp

by alucardigo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

fluig_process_card_value

Read a single card field value from a Fluig process request, using an explicit test or production environment to avoid cross-environment reads.

Instructions

Lê UM campo do card de uma solicitação (getCardValue).

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>",
      "cardFieldName": "<cardFieldName>",
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "fluig_process_card_value"
  }
}

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.
cardFieldNameYesnome do campo do form
processInstanceIdYesiProcess

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / cardFieldName / description
      Previous value: -"Form field name."New value: +"nome do campo do form"
    • 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",
-  "cardFieldName"
-]New value: +[
+  "processInstanceId",
+  "cardFieldName",
+  "env"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says only that it "reads." It does not state error behavior for a nonexistent field, whether the card must be in a particular state, permission/auth requirements, or the return shape (string vs typed value). Read-only nature is inferable from "Lê" but that is the only trait conveyed.

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, front-loaded with the verb and the key scoping constraint (one field). No waste, though it is thin enough that the 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.

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage this is minimally viable, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should still say what is returned (raw value, null on missing field) and any failure mode. Those gaps matter more here because nothing else covers them.

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 rich explanation of the env enum, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning (e.g., field-name syntax or iProcess vs requestId distinction), which is the expected baseline-3 outcome.

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 concrete verb+resource: reads ONE field of a request's card (getCardValue). The emphasis on "UM" implicitly scopes it against fluig_process_card_get (which returns the whole card), but that sibling is never named, so the differentiation is by implication only.

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?

Usage is only implied: the emphasis on a single field suggests preferring this over fetching the full card, but nothing states when to choose it versus fluig_process_card_get or what to do if the field is absent. No explicit alternatives or preconditions are given.

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