Read financial data in Feegow. Actions:
list_suppliers, search_supplier, list_categories, list_cost_centers, list_transfers, list_invoices, list_current_accounts, find_invoice_nfse, list_credit_card_brands, list_vouchers, list_sales, list_private_tables, get_dmed. All params are passed as JSON in the "data" field.
[Flattened action: get_dmed]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds that parameters are passed as JSON in the 'data' field, which is a behavioral detail beyond annotations but not extensive. No contradictions.
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 poorly structured: it mixes a generic purpose ('Read financial data'), a list of unrelated actions, a technical note about JSON passing, and a cryptic '[Flattened action: get_dmed]'. It is not concise or front-loaded with key information.
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 lack of output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should provide rich context. However, it fails to explain what DMED is, what data the tool returns, or how to use the parameters effectively. The annotations provide safety info, but the tool's function remains unclear.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It states 'All params are passed as JSON in the data field', which gives some context but does not explain what 'data' or 'account' parameters represent. The actual parameters remain mostly undocumented.
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?
The description starts with 'Read financial data in Feegow' but then lists many actions (list_suppliers, etc.), implying this tool does all of them. It does not specifically describe what 'get_dmed' does, leaving the purpose vague. The tool name suggests it retrieves a DMED, but the description offers no clarity.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like feegow_financial_list_invoices or feegow_financial_search_supplier. The description does not differentiate this action from others, nor does it mention prerequisites or 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.