fluig-mcp

fluig_rest_post

Send an authenticated POST request to a TOTVS Fluig REST endpoint, choosing the test or production environment and passing a JSON or form-urlencoded body.

Instructions

Escape hatch: POST autenticado. body como string JSON; form=true para x-www-form-urlencoded.

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_post"
  }
}

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.
`body`	No	corpo (JSON string)
`form`	No
`path`	Yes	caminho
`confirm`	No	obrigatório em env="prod" (em homologação passa direto)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv1.3.0Nov 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / body / description

Previous value: -"Body (JSON string)."New value: +"corpo (JSON string)"

addedInput schema / properties / confirm

Added value: +{
+  "description": "obrigatório em env=\"prod\" (em homologação passa direto)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

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"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / form / description
```
Removed value: -"Send as x-www-form-urlencoded."
```
changedInput schema / properties / path / description
```
Previous value: -"Path."New value: +"caminho"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "path"
-]New value: +[
+  "path",
+  "env"
+]

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

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. It does add real context: authentication is handled for you, and the payload format switches with form=true (x-www-form-urlencoded vs JSON string). It says nothing about mutating effects, idempotency, error behavior, or the prod-confirmation requirement, all of which matter for a raw write endpoint.

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 clause that identifies the tool's role first, then two compact format notes. Every fragment carries information, though the telegraphic style borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 5-parameter generic HTTP escape hatch with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the payload format but says nothing about what a response looks like, how errors surface, or the prod-safety flow. The schema fills some of that via env/confirm, leaving a thin but callable definition.

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 80%, so env and confirm are already well documented in the schema. The description adds meaning for body ('string JSON') and form ('x-www-form-urlencoded'), but leaves `path` bare as the schema does. Baseline 3 fits when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (POST), that it is authenticated, and labels itself an 'escape hatch' for raw REST calls, which distinguishes it from the dedicated per-resource tools and from the read-only sibling fluig_rest_get. It does not spell out that it targets an arbitrary `path`, but the pairing of 'escape hatch' with POST makes the intent clear.

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?

'Escape hatch' implies this is a fallback for endpoints with no dedicated tool, which is useful routing context given the very large sibling list. However it never explicitly says to prefer the specific tools or which cases this covers, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server