Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_benefit_card_write_update_plan

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_plan]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
accountNo

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are present but basic (no readOnly, destructive hints). The description adds little beyond stating 'write operations' – no details on side effects, authorization needs, or what 'benefit card' means. With annotations covering safety profile minimally, the description should compensate but does not.

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 relatively concise but structurally confusing. It lists four actions then appends '[Flattened action: update_plan]', which contradicts the earlier listing. This wastes space and reduces clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool handles multiple operations with no output schema, no error or return information, and incomplete parameter explanations. Given the complexity and zero schema coverage, the description should provide more context, such as the format of the 'data' parameter for each action.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions JSON bodies for actions but does not link to the 'data' and 'account' parameters. The description does not clarify what these parameters contain (e.g., is 'data' the JSON string for the action?). This is insufficient.

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

Purpose3/5

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 title and final line 'Flattened action: update_plan' suggest a primary focus. This creates ambiguity about the tool's actual purpose, making it unclear whether it handles multiple operations or just plan updates.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like feegow_benefit_card_write_create_plan or update_contract. The description does not differentiate use cases or indicate prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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