Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_medical_report_list

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: list]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is a read operation and mentions the 20-minute validity for get_file, but that pertains to a different action. For the actual list action, no additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination, limits) are given.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately sized but includes redundant action descriptions and a note about flattening. It front-loads the purpose but could be streamlined to focus only on the list action, as indicated by 'Flattened action: list'.

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?

The tool has a minimal input schema (2 unannotated parameters) and no output schema. The description fails to explain the actual parameters (data, account) and does not cover return values or behavior. It describes actions that are not fully supported, leaving the tool's usage unclear.

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 unspecified parameters (data, account) with 0% schema description coverage. The description lists parameters for the actions (start_date, end_date, patient_id for list) that do not match the actual schema. Thus, the description provides no meaningful information about the tool's parameters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states 'Read medical/lab reports (laudos) in Feegow' providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from the creation tool by referencing feegow_medical_report_write. However, listing multiple actions (list, get_file, search) with a note 'Flattened action: list' creates ambiguity about the tool's actual scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states 'For creating a report use feegow_medical_report_write', indicating when not to use this tool. Also implies that get_file and search have dedicated sibling tools (feegow_medical_report_get_file, feegow_medical_report_search), providing clear alternatives.

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