Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_appointment_write_update_status

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: update_status]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
accountNo

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide basic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that cancel is 'reversible status flip, not a hard delete.' However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or other side effects beyond annotations.

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 moderately structured with bullet points per action, but is verbose in listing optional parameters repeatedly. The 'Flattened action: update_status' note adds confusion. Could be more concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema and minimal input schema, the description covers actions and parameters well but lacks integration with the actual API signature (e.g., how to structure the 'data' field). Missing return value info and error handling, so incomplete for practical invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden. It lists required/optional parameters per action and gives format hints (e.g., data in DD-MM-YYYY). However, it does not explain how to map these to the actual schema's 'data' string property, leaving a gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool can create, cancel, reschedule, or update status of appointments, listing actions with parameters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like feegow_appointment_write_cancel by offering a consolidated interface. However, the name 'update_status' is narrower than the actual scope.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides detailed parameter lists per action but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus the sibling tools for individual actions (e.g., feegow_appointment_write_create). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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