Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_patient_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read patients in Feegow Clinic. Actions:

  • list: paginated patient list (offset/limit). Filter by telefone, cpf, origem_id, alterado_em, data_aniversario.

  • get: full detail by paciente_id (includes address, insurance, documents).

  • search_cpf: find patient by CPF (11 digits, numbers only). Returns name, birth date, gender, address, phones, emails, documents, insurance info.

[Flattened action: get]

Bulk support: accepts paciente_ids, origem_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cpfNo
limitNo
photoNo
offsetNo
accountNo
telefoneNo
origem_idNo
origem_idsNo
alterado_emNo
paciente_idNo
paciente_idsNo
programa_saudeNo
data_aniversarioNo

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by stating 'Read patients'. It adds behavioral detail on return fields and bulk support, though no contradictions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-organized with a bullet-like list of actions. It is somewhat verbose due to the 'Flattened action: get' note, but remains readable and front-loaded with key details.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers main use cases and return information, but falls short on explaining all parameters. It is largely complete for an agent to use effectively.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains 10 of 13 parameters (offset, limit, telefone, cpf, origem_id, alterado_em, data_aniversario, paciente_id, paciente_ids, origem_ids) but misses photo, account, and programa_saude. This partial coverage earns a 3.

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?

The description clearly states 'Read patients' and lists three distinct actions (list, get, search_cpf) with specific behaviors. It differentiates from sibling tools like feegow_patient_list and feegow_patient_search_cpf by bundling them into one tool.

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?

The description provides sub-action guidance but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like feegow_patient_write_create or feegow_patient_list. It lacks when-not-to-use examples, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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