Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fluig-mcp

fluig-mcp

by alucardigo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

fluig_process_version

Retrieves the active version of a BPM process from a TOTVS Fluig environment via SOAP, requiring explicit target environment selection.

Instructions

Versão ATIVA de um processo via SOAP (getWorkFlowProcessVersion). Funciona SEM o FluiggersWidget.

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>",
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "fluig_process_version"
  }
}

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.
processIdYesCOD_DEF_PROCES

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 / processId / description
      Previous value: -"Process id."New value: +"COD_DEF_PROCES"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "processId"
-]New value: +[
+  "processId",
+  "env"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the transport (SOAP) and that no FluiggersWidget is required, but says nothing about what the response contains (version string? full descriptor?), what happens when no version is active, or any auth/environment caveats beyond what the schema states.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the resource and scope. The parenthetical SOAP method name is slightly redundant but useful for debugging. Nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the return shape is the one thing an agent most needs and does not get — it cannot tell whether it receives a version identifier, a full object, or nothing when the process has no active version. Everything else needed to call it correctly is present.

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 thoroughly, including the explicit no-default rationale. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific resource with a qualifying scope: the ACTIVE version of a process, retrieved via the SOAP method getWorkFlowProcessVersion. The 'ATIVA' qualifier distinguishes it in spirit from the sibling fluig_process_versions, but the sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the split between 'active version' and 'all versions'.

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 statement of when to use this versus fluig_process_versions, fluig_process_version_release, or fluig_process_version_withdraw — all adjacent tools in the sibling list. The only usable cue is 'Funciona SEM o FluiggersWidget', which describes an installation precondition rather than a selection rule.

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