Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_benefit_card_write_create_contract

Write benefit card operations in Feegow (contracts and plans). Actions:

  • create_contract: create benefit contract. Full body with contract, recurrence, people arrays.

  • update_contract: update benefit contract.

  • create_plan: create benefit plan (name, membershipValue, recurrenceValue, dependencyMembershipValue, dependencyRecurrenceValue, parameters).

  • update_plan: update benefit plan (id required).

[Flattened action: create_contract]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
accountNo

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that create_contract requires a 'full body with contract, recurrence, people arrays,' but does not disclose behavior like auth requirements, side effects, or error handling.

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 concise but includes redundant listing of actions that could be split into separate tool definitions. The flattened action note is helpful, but overall structure could be tighter.

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 the minimal input schema and absent output schema, the description provides enough context for a simple create action but lacks details on prerequisites, error states, or expected return format.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description partially compensates by explaining that for create_contract the data string should contain 'contract, recurrence, people arrays.' The account parameter is not explained, leaving ambiguity.

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 specifies the tool is for writing benefit card operations, and the flattened action indicates the specific operation for this instance (create_contract). However, it lists multiple actions (update_contract, create_plan, update_plan) which could cause confusion with sibling tools like feegow_benefit_card_write_create_plan.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings such as feegow_benefit_card_write_create_plan or feegow_benefit_card_write_update_contract. The description does not differentiate between similar write operations, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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