Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_medical_report_get_file

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read medical/lab reports (laudos) in Feegow. Actions:

  • list: list reports by date range. Requires start_date, end_date (YYYY-MM-DD), patient_id.

  • get_file: get download URL for report file (valid 20 min). Requires lab_report_id.

  • search: find report by agendamento_id. Optional: procedimento_id. For creating a report use feegow_medical_report_write.

[Flattened action: get_file]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) indicate safe read-only operation. Description adds that the download URL is valid for 20 minutes, which is useful behavioral context beyond 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 not concise; it lists three actions (list, get_file, search) and a cross-reference for creation, when only get_file is relevant. The flattened action note is helpful but the extra information distracts and makes the description longer than necessary.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having annotations, the description lacks sufficient detail about parameters and return values. No output schema exists, so the description should explain what the tool returns, but it only mentions a download URL with expiry. Missing parameter semantics reduce completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'lab_report_id' for get_file, but the schema has only undocumented 'data' and 'account' parameters. The description does not clarify what these parameters represent or how to use them.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool is for reading medical/lab reports and specifies the get_file action (get download URL). However, it also includes unrelated actions (list, search) for the same tool, causing ambiguity about the tool's exact 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like feegow_medical_report_list or feegow_medical_report_search. The description mentions 'For creating a report use feegow_medical_report_write', but does not differentiate between get_file and the other read 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