fluig-mcp

fluig_process_event_set

Writes a BPM process event to event_proces in place with automatic backup, requiring explicit confirmation and environment selection to prevent accidental production changes.

Instructions

⚠️ Grava um evento de PROCESSO na event_proces (in-place, com BACKUP automático). Exige confirm=true. Use só em homolog e com consciência.

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": {
      "processCode": "<processCode>",
      "eventName": "<eventName>",
      "version": "<version>",
      "code": "<code>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>",
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "fluig_process_event_set"
  }
}

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.
`code`	Yes	novo código
`confirm`	Yes
`version`	Yes	NUM_VERS
`eventName`	Yes	ex: servicetask71
`processCode`	Yes	COD_DEF_PROCES

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv1.3.0Nov 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / code / description

Previous value: -"New source."New value: +"novo código"

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 / eventName / description

Previous value: -"Event name."New value: +"ex: servicetask71"

changedInput schema / properties / processCode / description

Previous value: -"COD_DEF_PROCES."New value: +"COD_DEF_PROCES"

changedInput schema / properties / version / description
```
Previous value: -"NUM_VERS."New value: +"NUM_VERS"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "processCode",
-  "eventName",
-  "version",
-  "code",
-  "confirm"
-]New value: +[
+  "processCode",
+  "eventName",
+  "version",
+  "code",
+  "confirm",
+  "env"
+]

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose key mutation behavior: it writes in-place, makes an automatic backup, and requires confirm=true. It stops short of explaining permissions, rollback details, or what happens if confirmation is absent.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with a warning, followed by the core behavior, the confirmation requirement, and the usage restriction. Each sentence contributes to safe invocation, with no wasted text.

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 dangerous mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential safety facts: in-place write, automatic backup, and confirm=true. It still leaves important gaps around return behavior, permissions, and how this tool relates to the related event tools.

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 high at 83%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds useful meaning only for confirm, stating it must be true, but does not clarify the other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it writes a PROCESS event into event_proces. It also adds meaningful scope, in-place with automatic backup, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as fluig_process_event_get or fluig_process_event_set_xml.

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?

It gives a clear restriction, use only in homolog, and a prerequisite, confirm=true. However, it does not name alternatives or when to choose a sibling tool, and the homolog-only advice conflicts with the schema's env enum that includes prod.

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

Deploy Server