Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_patient_support_list_dependents

Read-onlyIdempotent

Supporting patient data reads in Feegow. Actions:

  • list_sources: list all patient origins (origem).

  • list_dependents: list dependents for a patient (requires paciente_id).

  • list_privates: list private pricing tables.

  • health_programs: list health programs (filter by program_id, nome_programa, convenio_id, status, tipo_programa_id, data_start, data_end).

  • exam_requests: list exam requests (requires paciente_id, data_inicio, data_fim, tipo_pedido: 1=Standard, 2=SADT).

For uploading a file to a patient record use feegow_patient_support_write.

[Flattened action: list_dependents]

Bulk support: accepts paciente_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo
paciente_idNo
paciente_idsNo

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds bulk support via paciente_ids, but no further behavioral traits. Consistent with 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 overly long due to listing multiple actions, many of which are irrelevant to this tool. It does not front-load the core purpose or structure information efficiently.

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?

Given the complexity (multiple actions flattened) and no output schema, the description should clarify which action is active. It fails to do so and lacks full parameter documentation, leaving gaps in understanding.

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?

Schema parameter coverage is 0%. The description explains paciente_id and paciente_ids succinctly but does not address the 'data' and 'account' parameters. It also contradicts the schema by stating paciente_id is required when the schema lists no required parameters.

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 'list dependents for a patient' but is buried among a list of other actions, making the primary purpose unclear. The flattened action label helps, but the clutter reduces clarity.

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?

It mentions an alternative tool for file uploads (feegow_patient_support_write) and notes that paciente_id is required for list_dependents. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also list patient-related data.

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