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_private_tables]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that 'All params are passed as JSON in the data field,' which is a useful behavioral hint about parameter encoding, but it does not explain the account parameter or return behavior. No contradiction with 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?
The description includes a lengthy list of unrelated actions, which is noise for this specific tool. The core information about list_private_tables is buried and the listing wastes space. A concise, focused description would be more helpful.
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?
There is no output schema and the description lacks return value details or behavior for a list operation. Parameter meanings are vague, and the tool's expected response format is unaddressed, leaving the agent without crucial context.
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 compensate. It says 'All params are passed as JSON in the data field,' implying the data string contains nested parameters, but it does not clarify the meaning or content of either the data or account parameters. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid input.
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' which is generic, but the tool's name 'feegow_financial_list_private_tables' and the flattened action at the end 'list_private_tables' clarify its specific purpose. However, the inclusion of many other actions in the list causes ambiguity and detracts from the primary function.
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 list_suppliers or list_categories. The description lists many actions but does not differentiate this tool's role.
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.