Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_financial_write_create_invoice

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: create_invoice]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
accountNo

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are minimal (non-read-only, non-destructive). Description mentions 'write financial operations' but does not disclose specifics like authentication requirements, side effects of each action, or rate limits. For a tool with many actions, the lack of detail reduces transparency.

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?

Description is a bullet list of actions but repeats information from the tool name and siblings. It is not concise for a single-purpose tool; it wastes space listing actions that have their own tools. The flattening note is confusing.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description should provide complete guidance. It does not explain return values, how to invoke a specific action, or what the 'data' parameter expects. The tool is incomplete for effective use.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema has 0% description coverage. Parameters 'data' and 'account' are not explained. Description lists actions but does not link them to parameters or specify required format or structure of 'data'. This fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema.

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

Purpose2/5

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

Description lists multiple actions (associate_account, update_nfse, etc.) rather than focusing on create_invoice as the tool name implies. The '[Flattened action: create_invoice]' note suggests it is supposed to be for create_invoice, but the description is overbroad and contradicts the intended purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Only provides guidance to use feegow_financial_delete for destructive removals. Does not explain when to use this aggregate tool over the many dedicated sibling tools for individual actions (e.g., feegow_financial_write_create_invoice_by_appt, 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