Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_medical_report_search

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: search]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the tool as safe and read-only. The description adds context about reading reports and a 20-minute URL validity for get_file, but the multiple-action list creates uncertainty about actual 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 includes extraneous actions and a cryptic '[Flattened action: search]' note. It is not concise; bullet points help structure but list details that may not belong to this tool, making it longer than necessary.

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?

Given the sparse schema (2 generic params, 0% coverage) and implied multi-action complexity, the description is highly incomplete. It does not clarify how to invoke each action via the provided schema, leaving the agent without actionable guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only two parameters (data, account) in the schema, the description fails to explain their meaning or map them to the listed actions. It instead introduces unrelated parameters (start_date, end_date, etc.) that are not in the schema, adding confusion.

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 states 'Read medical/lab reports' but then lists three actions (list, get_file, search), contradicting the tool name 'search' and the final note '[Flattened action: search]'. This ambiguity obscures the tool's actual 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?

The description suggests using feegow_medical_report_write for creating reports, but fails to clarify when to use this tool versus sibling tools like feegow_medical_report_list or feegow_medical_report_get_file, and gives no guidance on selecting among the three 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