Read clinic company info in Feegow. Actions:
list_units: list all units (matriz + filiais). Optional: endereco, cep.
list_locals: list rooms/locations registered across units.
[Flattened action: list_locals]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cep | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| endereco | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate a safe read operation. Description adds 'Read clinic company info' consistent with annotations, but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like output format or pagination. No contradiction.
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 short but includes extraneous information about list_units, which is better left to the sibling tool. The flattening note is helpful but the mixed focus reduces clarity. Could be more concise by only describing list_locals.
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 the simple schema (3 params, no output schema), a clear description should suffice, but the ambiguity about the actual action and parameter roles leaves the agent unsure about what the tool returns and how to use parameters correctly.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'Optional: endereco, cep' but only in context of list_units, not list_locals. The 'account' parameter is not explained at all. This provides insufficient meaning for the agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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?
Description states 'Read clinic company info' but then lists two actions (list_units and list_locals) while the tool name suggests list_locals. The final 'Flattened action: list_locals' clarifies the intended action, but the inclusion of list_units creates ambiguity and conflates with sibling tool feegow_company_list_units.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like feegow_company_list_units. The description even mentions list_units as a possible action, potentially leading an agent to use this tool for unit listing instead of the dedicated sibling.
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.