Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_appointment_statuses

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: statuses]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description claims to support actions with many parameters (data_start, profissional_id, etc.), but the actual input schema only has two string fields ('data' and 'account'). This contradiction makes the tool's real behavior opaque and misleading.

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 excessively long and contains a list of actions that are irrelevant to the tool's actual functionality (based on the schema). The final note '[Flattened action: statuses]' suggests oversimplification, but the overall structure is poor and wastes space.

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 mismatch between the described functionality and the minimal schema, the description fails to provide a complete and accurate picture. It does not explain how the tool works with only two parameters, leaving the agent without actionable guidance.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description lists numerous parameters (e.g., data_start, data_end, profissional_id) that are not present in the schema. This misleads the agent into thinking it can pass those parameters, leading to inevitable errors.

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 starts with 'Read appointments and scheduling data in Feegow.' which is broad and does not match the tool name 'feegow_appointment_statuses'. It lists multiple actions (list, statuses, motives, etc.) that are likely handled by other sibling tools, causing confusion about the actual purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., feegow_appointment_list, feegow_appointment_channels). The description lists actions that appear to belong to other tools, making it impossible to determine when this specific tool is appropriate.

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