Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_appointment_available_schedule

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read appointments and scheduling data in Feegow. Actions:

  • list: search appointments by date range (data_start/data_end DD-MM-YYYY), profissional_id, paciente_id, unidade_id, especialidade_id, procedimento_id, canal_id, retorno, list_procedures (1/0).

  • statuses: list all appointment status types (Marcado, Em atendimento, Atendido, etc.).

  • motives: list cancellation/rescheduling motives.

  • channels: list appointment channels (online, clinic, etc.).

  • available_schedule: find available time slots. Requires tipo (E=Especialidade, P=Procedimento), data_start, data_end (DD-MM-YYYY). Optional: especialidade_id, procedimento_id, unidade_id, profissional_id, convenio_id.

  • queue_position: generate queue ticket (requires unidade_id, tipo_senha: 0=G, 1=P, 2=C, 3=E, 4=R).

[Flattened action: available_schedule]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by stating 'Read appointments and scheduling data'. The description adds that it finds available time slots, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication or rate limiting.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is verbose, listing multiple actions irrelevant to this specific tool. It would be more concise and front-loaded by focusing solely on the available_schedule action.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the low schema coverage and no output schema, the description fails to explain how to supply the required parameters via the 'data' field or the expected format. It is incomplete and inconsistent with the actual schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema defines only 'data' and 'account' as string parameters with no descriptions, while the description details many parameters like tipo, data_start, data_end, etc. that are not present in the schema. This mismatch misleads the agent about what parameters to provide.

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 description includes the specific action 'available_schedule: find available time slots' which clarifies the tool's purpose, but it also lists other unrelated actions (list, statuses, etc.) that are not part of this tool, causing potential confusion. The tool name itself is clear enough.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its sibling tools. It only provides parameter requirements for the available_schedule action, but no guidance on alternatives or context for selection.

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

All Feegow Clinic toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Many tools have identical descriptions (e.g., multiple tools with same 'Read appointments and scheduling data' text) and only differ by a 'flattened action' label, making it impossible for an agent to distinguish which tool to call for a specific operation.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names follow a loose verb_noun pattern but are extremely inconsistent: some use underscores, some have redundant prefixes like 'feegow_appointment_', and the same actions are duplicated across multiple tool names (e.g., 'list' appears in many). The 'flattened action' suffix is confusing.

Tool Count1/5

94 tools is far too many for a clinic management system. This is clearly due to a one-action-per-tool design that fragments the API surface, making the server bloated and hard to navigate. A typical well-structured server for this domain would have 10-20 tools.

Completeness3/5

The server covers many areas (appointments, patients, financial, procedures, stock, etc.), suggesting broad functionality. However, the fragmentation obscures gaps and makes it difficult to determine if all CRUD operations exist for each entity. Some areas (e.g., stock write) have multiple tools for single actions.

Resources