Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_financial_write_associate_account

Write financial operations in Feegow. Actions:

  • associate_account: associate financial account to patient (account, association).

  • update_nfse: update NFS-e number on invoice (invoice_id, nfse_numero).

  • pay_invoice: pay an invoice.

  • create_invoice: create a new invoice.

  • create_invoice_by_appt: create invoice from appointment.

  • create_voucher: create a voucher.

  • update_voucher: update a voucher.

  • pay_booking: pay a booking (bookingId, amount, associationId, accountId, paymentMethod, paymentDate YYYY-MM-DD).

For destructive removals (remove_invoice, remove_payment, cancel_voucher) use feegow_financial_delete.

[Flattened action: associate_account]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
accountNo

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false). The description adds minimal extra context about what it does (associate account) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or reversibility.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is verbose, listing many irrelevant actions for this specific tool. The essential information (associate_account) is buried at the end. Each sentence should earn its place, but most are noise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema and 0% schema coverage. The description fails to explain the format of 'data' and 'account', what 'association' means, or the result of the operation. Incomplete for safe invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions parameters 'account' and 'association', but the schema only has 'data' and 'account'. This mismatch could confuse agents about the required inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The tool name and last line specify associate_account, and the description states 'associate financial account to patient'. However, the description is a generic list of many write actions, diluting focus. Sibling differentiation is weak; the agent may confuse this with other financial write tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description tells the agent to use feegow_financial_delete for destructive removals, providing a clear exclusion. But no guidance on when to use this specific associate_account tool versus other financial write tools like feegow_financial_write_pay_invoice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Feegow Clinic toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

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.

Naming Consistency2/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources