List employees in Feegow. Requires ativo (0=inactive, 1=active). Optional: unidade_id.
Bulk support: accepts unidade_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ativo | No | ||
| account | No | ||
| unidade_id | No | ||
| unidade_ids | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds batch execution capability via 'unidade_ids', providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Two focused sentences, first covers purpose and key parameters, second adds bulk feature. No wasted words, easy to scan.
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?
Covers purpose, required/optional parameters, batch support. Lacks details on output format or pagination, but for a simple list tool with good annotations, it's adequate.
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?
Describes ativo (with values explained), unidade_id (optional), and unidade_ids (bulk). However, the 'account' parameter is not mentioned, leaving its purpose unclear. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.
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?
States 'List employees in Feegow' clearly identifying the action and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, the resource name 'employee' is distinct.
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?
Provides parameter requirements (ativo) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling list tools for other entities. No exclusionary context.
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.