feegow_list_accounts
Read-onlyIdempotent
List Feegow API connections (clinics) linked to this install — id, label, name.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
Feegow Clinic
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds return fields but doesn't disclose parameter filtering behavior or pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, short sentence with key information front-loaded; no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple listing tool but missing parameter semantics and return structure (e.g., array or object). Not fully complete given no output schema.
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 sole optional parameter 'account' has no description in schema, and the description provides no explanation of its purpose or effect. Schema coverage is 0%, and description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'List Feegow API connections (clinics) linked to this install' with specific fields id, label, name. Distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on patients, appointments, etc.
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?
Implied usage context (listing accounts before using other feegow tools) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
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.