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: list_current_accounts]
| 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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which adequately indicate safe read behavior. The description adds a minor behavioral detail ('All params are passed as JSON in the data field') but does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed, so a 3 is appropriate.
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 not concise. It includes a long list of unrelated actions (e.g., list_suppliers, search_supplier) that are not relevant to this tool. The only relevant part is the final line '[Flattened action: list_current_accounts]', but the bulk of the description is clutter, wasting space and confusing the agent.
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 many sibling financial list tools and the lack of output schema, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not specify what data is returned (e.g., account IDs, names, balances) or how to interpret results. The agent cannot confidently use this tool without additional external knowledge.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It vaguely states that all params are passed as JSON in the 'data' field, but does not describe what 'data' or 'account' contain or how they affect the call. This provides almost no semantic value beyond the schema.
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 is vague and mixes multiple actions into one tool. It says 'Read financial data in Feegow' and lists many actions, but the specific action for this tool is 'list_current_accounts' as indicated only in the flattened action tag. This does not clearly state the tool's specific purpose and fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like feegow_financial_list_categories or feegow_financial_list_invoices.
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 alternatives. With many sibling financial list tools, the agent has no basis to choose this one over others. The description does not mention any preconditions, context, or scenarios for use.
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.