Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fluig-mcp

fluig-mcp

by alucardigo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

fluig_rest_get

Performs an authenticated GET request to any Fluig API path for the selected test or production environment, enabling direct access when no dedicated tool covers an endpoint.

Instructions

Escape hatch: GET autenticado num caminho arbitrário da API do Fluig.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "fluig_rest_get"
  }
}

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.
pathYesex: /ecm/api/rest/ecm/dataset/loadDataset?datasetId=x

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 / path / description
      Previous value: -"Path, e.g. /ecm/api/rest/ecm/dataset/loadDataset?datasetId=x"New value: +"ex: /ecm/api/rest/ecm/dataset/loadDataset?datasetId=x"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "path"
-]New value: +[
+  "path",
+  "env"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful facts: requests are authenticated automatically and the path is arbitrary. It says nothing about error behavior, response shape, side effects of hitting an unexpected endpoint, or permission scope — meaningful gaps for a tool that can reach any API surface.

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 the key framing ("Escape hatch") placed first and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness shades into under-specification rather than pure economy.

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?

Only two required, well-documented parameters and no output schema, so the bar is low and the definition is broadly callable. Still missing is guidance on when the fallback is appropriate versus the many dedicated siblings, and what a caller should expect back from an arbitrary path.

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 coverage is 100% and the env parameter is documented thoroughly (explicit no-default rationale, prod-vs-teste distinction, host mapping) while path carries a concrete example. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies; the schema, not the description, is doing 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?

"Escape hatch: GET autenticado num caminho arbitrário da API do Fluig" states a specific verb (GET) and resource (arbitrary Fluig API path), which cleanly separates it from the mutating sibling fluig_rest_post. It does not, however, contrast itself against the ~80 dedicated tools it is meant to bypass, so the differentiation is only half-explicit.

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?

The phrase "Escape hatch" implies "use this when no dedicated tool covers the endpoint," but that is inference, not instruction. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, which matters given the large sibling set of purpose-built Fluig tools.

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