fluig-mcp

fluig_workflow_events_update

Records or updates process events for a Fluig workflow, with explicit test or production environment selection and production confirmation.

Instructions

Grava eventos de um processo (requer FluiggersWidget). events = [{name, contents}].

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>",
      "version": "<version>",
      "events": "<events>",
      "env": "<env>"
    },
    "name": "fluig_workflow_events_update"
  }
}

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.
`events`	Yes	[{name, contents}]
`confirm`	No	obrigatório em env="prod" (em homologação passa direto)
`version`	Yes	versão
`processId`	Yes	id do processo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv1.3.0Nov 2, 2026

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"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / processId / description

Previous value: -"Process id."New value: +"id do processo"

changedInput schema / properties / version / description

Previous value: -"Process version."New value: +"versão"

changedInput schema / required

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

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful precondition (FluiggersWidget dependency), but for a write operation it says nothing about whether existing events are replaced or merged, what permissions are needed, or whether the change is reversible; the prod-confirmation requirement lives only in the schema, not the description.

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 action and resource, no filler. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than padded, which is the lesser fault.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: the array items are typed only as generic objects, and nothing explains the effect on existing events or the prod confirmation flow that the schema implies. An agent could invoke it but not predict the outcome confidently.

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 the schema already documents env, confirm, version and processId thoroughly. The description's 'events = [{name, contents}]' adds a small amount of shape detail for the loosely typed array, but nothing about semantics of version or overwrite behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Grava' (writes/saves) plus the resource 'eventos de um processo' states the operation clearly enough to identify it as a write of workflow events. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as fluig_process_event_set, fluig_process_event_set_xml or fluig_workflow_events_get, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

The only guidance is the parenthetical prerequisite 'requer FluiggersWidget'. There is no statement of when to use this versus fluig_process_event_set or fluig_process_events_xml, and no exclusions or preconditions beyond the plugin requirement.

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

Deploy Server