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: search_supplier]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds that parameters are passed as JSON in the 'data' field, which is helpful, but it misrepresents the tool's scope by listing multiple unrelated actions, reducing transparency.
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 long list of actions that are not relevant to this tool, making it cluttered. The key information ('Flattened action: search_supplier') is buried at the end. A concise description focused on the single action is needed.
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?
The description fails to explain what 'search_supplier' does, what it searches by, or what it returns. With no output schema and low parameter documentation, the tool is poorly defined.
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%. The description explains that all params are passed as JSON in the 'data' field, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify the structure of that JSON for 'search_supplier', and the 'account' parameter is not explained.
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 broad ('Read financial data in Feegow') and then lists many actions, but the tool name and flattened action indicate it is specifically for 'search_supplier'. This creates confusion about the tool's actual purpose and does not clearly state that it searches for suppliers.
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 like 'feegow_financial_list_suppliers'. The description lacks context on scenarios or exclusion criteria.
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.