Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_appointment_channels

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: channels]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which align with the described 'Read' nature. The description adds some parameter details for internal actions but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, side effects) beyond what annotations provide.

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 long and contains verbose parameter lists for each action, but the critical information (that this tool is for channels and how to invoke it given the minimal schema) is not front-loaded. The note '[Flattened action: channels]' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 minimal input schema (two string parameters) and no output schema, the description should explain how to use the tool. Instead, it details parameters that do not exist in the schema, making it impossible to correctly invoke the tool based on the description alone. The description is severely incomplete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has only two generic parameters ('data' and 'account') with 0% schema description coverage, but the description lists many action-specific parameters (e.g., data_start, profissional_id) that are not part of the actual schema. The description does not explain how 'data' and 'account' relate to the actions, leaving the agent without guidance on how to populate the real parameters.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description lists multiple actions (list, statuses, motives, channels, etc.) but the tool name is 'channels' and the note '[Flattened action: channels]' suggests it is specifically for accessing appointment channels. This ambiguity makes it unclear what the tool actually does, as it duplicates functionality of sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., feegow_appointment_list, feegow_appointment_statuses). The description does not differentiate between this tool and others, leaving the agent to guess which tool to invoke.

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