Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_financial_write_update_voucher

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: update_voucher]

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 provide minimal info (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false). The description does not add behavioral details like idempotency, side effects, or return behavior.

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 a list of actions with a confusing final line '[Flattened action: update_voucher]'. It is not concise and lacks clear structure for a single tool.

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?

The description fails to explain how to select an action or provide required fields for each. With no output schema and low parameter coverage, the agent lacks essential information.

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?

Both parameters (data, account) have 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain their meaning, format, or how they map to the listed actions.

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, etc.) but the tool name and final line indicate it is for 'update_voucher'. The purpose is ambiguous and conflicts with sibling tools like feegow_financial_write_create_voucher.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. sibling write tools. Only a mention to use feegow_financial_delete for destructive removals, but no context for selecting among the listed actions.

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