Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_appointment_write_reschedule

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: reschedule]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
accountNo

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are minimal (all false). The description adds some context: cancellation is a reversible status flip, not a hard delete. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects for other actions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with bullet points for multiple actions, but the tool name suggests a single action. The 'Flattened action: reschedule' contradicts the listed actions. The structure is not tailored to this specific tool.

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 complexity of multiple actions and many parameters, the description fails to explain how to invoke the tool correctly. The schema does not support the described parameters, making the description useless for proper invocation. No output 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 description lists many parameters (e.g., local_id, paciente_id) for each action, but the input schema only has 'data' and 'account' with no descriptions. This mismatch is highly misleading; the agent cannot map described parameters to actual schema properties.

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 to handle create, cancel, reschedule, and update_status, but the tool name is 'reschedule' and sibling tools exist for each specific action. This ambiguity confuses the tool's actual purpose. The 'Flattened action: reschedule' hint adds contradiction.

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 on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like feegow_appointment_write_cancel or feegow_appointment_write_create. The description does not differentiate use cases or provide exclusions.

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