Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_benefit_card_write_update_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: update_contract]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
accountNo

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds 'write benefit card operations' but fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, or behavior of individual actions (e.g., whether updates are partial or full replacement).

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 action listings and an ambiguous flattened action note. It could be clearer and more focused on the intended action.

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?

The description lacks critical information: how to select an action, the format of the 'data' string, return values, and error conditions. Given the presence of sibling tools and the complexity of the domain, the description is insufficient.

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 schema has two parameters, 'data' and 'account', with no descriptions in the schema (0% coverage). The description briefly mentions 'Full body with contract, recurrence, people arrays' for create_contract but does not explain the structure of 'data' for other actions, nor the role of 'account'.

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 lists multiple actions (create_contract, update_contract, create_plan, update_plan) but the tool name and final note indicate it's for update_contract. This ambiguity obscures the specific purpose and conflicts with sibling tools that specialize in each action.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like feegow_benefit_card_write_create_contract or feegow_benefit_card_write_update_plan. The description does not clarify which action to choose or how to specify it.

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