Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_financial_write_pay_booking

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: pay_booking]

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 indicate not read-only and not destructive, which aligns with 'write financial operations'. But the description adds no additional behavioral details such as idempotency, side effects, or error conditions, relying solely on the annotations.

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 bloated with a list of unrelated actions that are not part of this tool's function, making it verbose and confusing. The single relevant action (pay_booking) is buried, violating conciseness.

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?

Given the mismatch between described parameters (6) and schema (2), and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot determine input format, return structure, or how to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (data and account) with 0% coverage, and the description lists six different parameters for pay_booking. There is no explanation of how the schema maps to these parameters, leaving the agent unable to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

The description lists multiple actions but the tool name and final note suggest it's for pay_booking only. This ambiguity obscures the tool's specific purpose, making it unclear whether it handles all listed actions or just one.

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?

The description provides an exclusion for destructive actions, directing to another tool. However, it fails to clarify when to use this tool versus other financial write tools (e.g., feegow_financial_write_create_invoice) and the listed actions create confusion about scope.

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