Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_appointment_write_create

Create, cancel, reschedule, or update status of appointments in Feegow. Actions:

  • create: new appointment. Requires local_id, paciente_id, profissional_id, especialidade_id, procedimento_id, data (DD-MM-YYYY), horario (HH:MM:SS 24h), valor (centavos), plano (0=no insurance, 1=insurance). Optional: convenio_id, convenio_plano_id, canal_id, tabela_id, notas, celular, telefone, email, retorno, sys_user.

  • cancel: requires agendamento_id, motivo_id. Optional: obs. (reversible status flip — not a hard delete).

  • reschedule: requires agendamento_id, motivo_id, data (DD-MM-YYYY), horario (HH:MM:SS). Optional: obs.

  • update_status: requires AgendamentoID, StatusID. Optional: Obs, HoraChegada (HH:MM for waiting status).

[Flattened action: create]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
accountNo

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that cancellation is a reversible status flip, not hard delete. However, the description fails to align with annotations regarding the scope of actions (create vs. all).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is verbose and mixes multiple actions, but it is structured with bullet points and optional fields. However, it could be more concise by focusing on the single intended action (create) and referencing siblings for others.

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?

Given the schema poverty and complexity, the description attempts to be complete but fails due to contradictions with sibling tools and the schema. The output schema is absent, so return values are not explained.

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 0% description coverage with only 'data' and 'account' parameters. The description compensates by listing many action-specific parameters, but these do not match the schema, leading to confusion about which parameters are actually required or available.

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 claims the tool can create, cancel, reschedule, or update status, which contradicts the existence of sibling tools dedicated to cancel, reschedule, and update status. The phrase '[Flattened action: create]' adds confusion, as the description itself describes multiple actions. This misalignment makes the purpose unclear.

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_write_cancel). The description lists multiple actions without indicating which scenario warrants this tool over another.

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