Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_financial_write_pay_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: pay_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 indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds little beyond listing actions. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or the nature of the pay_invoice operation (e.g., whether it changes invoice status irreversibly).

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 unnecessarily long, listing multiple irrelevant actions. The key information (pay_invoice) is buried. The ending note is confusing. It could be condensed to a single sentence focusing on the flattened action.

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?

For a mutation tool with 2 unnamed parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain how to use the parameters, the expected format, or the result. Agents lack necessary context to invoke 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?

Input schema has two parameters (data, account) with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions parameters for pay_booking, not for pay_invoice, and provides no context on what 'data' or 'account' should contain. No meaning added beyond the 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?

The description lists multiple actions (associate_account, update_nfse, pay_invoice, etc.) under a tool named for paying an invoice, causing confusion. The final note '[Flattened action: pay_invoice]' suggests it should be specific, but the description does not clearly state the tool's sole purpose of paying an invoice.

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 only gives negative guidance ('For destructive removals use feegow_financial_delete'), but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives among the many sibling write tools. No context on triggers or prerequisites for using this tool over others.

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