Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fluig-mcp

fluig-mcp

by alucardigo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

fluig_process_import_xml

Deploys a Fluig process definition (.ecm30.xml) through REST v2 in one call, replacing the SOAP create/import/release sequence; set release=true to publish and confirm=true to execute.

Instructions

⚠️ ESCRITA ESTRUTURAL. Faz DEPLOY da definição de processo (.ecm30.xml) pela REST v2. UMA chamada substitui a sequência SOAP createWorkFlowProcessVersion→importProcess→releaseProcess (o servidor faz os 3 internamente). release=true publica junto. Exige confirm=true. Valide antes com round-trip (export → import idêntico).

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": {
      "processId": "<processId>",
      "xml": "<xml>",
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "fluig_process_import_xml"
  }
}

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.
xmlYesconteúdo do .ecm30.xml (raiz <list><ProcessDefinition>…)
formIdNodocumentId do formulário a vincular (opcional)
confirmNoobrigatório true
releaseNoliberar/publicar a versão na mesma chamada
processIdYesid do processo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Must be true to actually perform the operation."New value: +"obrigatório true"
    • 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 / formId / description
      Previous value: -"documentId of the form to bind (optional)."New value: +"documentId do formulário a vincular (opcional)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / isNew
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "true creates a new process; false (default) adds a version to an existing one.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / processId / description
      Previous value: -"Process id."New value: +"id do processo"
    • changedInput schema / properties / release / description
      Previous value: -"Publish the version in the same call."New value: +"liberar/publicar a versão na mesma chamada"
    • changedInput schema / properties / xml / description
      Previous value: -"Contents of the .ecm30.xml (root <list><ProcessDefinition>)."New value: +"conteúdo do .ecm30.xml (raiz <list><ProcessDefinition>…)"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "processId",
-  "xml"
-]New value: +[
+  "processId",
+  "xml",
+  "env"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags a structural write, explains the hidden multi-step server behavior (three internal operations collapsed into one call), states that release=true publishes immediately, and mandates confirm=true. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing versions/instances on redeploy.

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?

Front-loaded warning, then purpose, then the SOAP-equivalence, then the release/confirm semantics, then the validation advice. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 high-risk mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it destroys/replaces, the publish flag, the confirmation gate, and a safe pre-check. Remaining gaps (impact on in-flight instances, failure modes, permissions) are meaningful but secondary.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that release=true publishes as part of the same deployment rather than as a separate action, and that confirm=true is a deliberate safety gate. The xml parameter's expected root structure is also echoed usefully.

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 and resource — deploys a process definition (.ecm30.xml) via REST v2 — and clarifies that one call replaces the SOAP createWorkFlowProcessVersion→importProcess→releaseProcess sequence. It does not name the closest MCP siblings (fluig_deploy_process, fluig_process_create, fluig_process_export_xml), so the differentiation is against a legacy API sequence rather than the tools the agent is actually choosing between.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete preconditions (confirm=true required, release=true to publish in the same call) and prescribes a validation workflow: do an export→import round-trip first. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over fluig_deploy_process or fluig_process_create, or when not to use it at all.

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