Read benefit card data in Feegow (contracts and plans). Actions:
list_contracts: list benefit contracts. Filter by page, perPage, document, planId, name, personID, accountOwner, registrationNumber, initialDate, endDate, statusContractId, unity, user, accountPayer.
list_plans: list benefit plans. Filter by page, perPage, id.
[Flattened action: list_contracts]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds filter details but no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with bullet points but includes extraneous details like both actions and a note about 'Flattened action'. It could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and low schema coverage, the description fails to explain return values or how to use the 'data' and 'account' parameters. It also does not clarify the mismatch between the listed filters and actual schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters 'data' and 'account' with no descriptions, and the description does not explain them. It instead lists filters that are not in the schema, providing no help for the actual parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Read benefit card data' and lists two actions with filters, making the purpose clear. However, it includes both list_contracts and list_plans while the tool is specifically for list_contracts, causing slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 the sibling 'feegow_benefit_card_list_plans' or other contexts. The description lacks explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.