fluig-mcp

fluig_process_states

Lists valid movement states available from a request's current state, so agents can choose the next workflow transition without manual lookup.

Instructions

Lista os estados válidos de movimentação (choosedState) a partir do estado atual da solicitação (getAvailableStates -> IntArray).

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>",
      "processInstanceId": "<processInstanceId>",
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "fluig_process_states"
  }
}

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.
`processId`	Yes	COD_DEF_PROCES
`processInstanceId`	Yes	iProcess

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.3.0Nov 2, 2026

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 / processId / description

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

changedInput schema / properties / processInstanceId / description
```
Previous value: -"Instance number."New value: +"iProcess"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "processId",
-  "processInstanceId"
-]New value: +[
+  "processId",
+  "processInstanceId",
+  "env"
+]

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return type (IntArray of state codes) via the API mapping, which is useful, but it says nothing about read-only safety, permissions required, whether the current state is included, or what happens for a closed/finished request.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical API reference adds real signal rather than padding. Slightly dense but appropriately sized.

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 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only partially complete: it reveals the return type (IntArray) but not what the returned state IDs are for or that they feed into a subsequent move (e.g. fluig_process_move's choosedState). An agent can call it but not obviously complete the workflow from this description alone.

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%, so all three parameters (env, processId, processInstanceId) are already documented, including the careful env semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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: it lists the valid movement states (choosedState) for a request's current state, and even names the underlying API call (getAvailableStates -> IntArray). However, it does not distinguish itself from the many near-identically named siblings such as fluig_process_active_states, fluig_process_states_detail, and fluig_process_def_states, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. The phrase 'a partir do estado atual da solicitação' implies context but never states prerequisites (does the request need to be open?) or exclusions relative to the similar state-related sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server