Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_patient_support_list_privates

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_privates]

Bulk support: accepts paciente_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo
paciente_idNo
paciente_idsNo

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds bulk execution support (paciente_ids), but the listing of multiple actions contradicts the flattened action, reducing transparency. No mention of authentication or rate limits.

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 verbose and includes irrelevant actions. A concise version would focus solely on listing private pricing tables and bulk execution. The structure is cluttered.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It adds bulk execution context but fails to explain all parameters or return values, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only explains paciente_ids for bulk support, leaving data, account, and paciente_id undocumented. The parameter purpose is unclear, especially since list_privates likely doesn't require paciente_id.

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_privates: list private pricing tables,' which is clear. However, the inclusion of other actions (list_sources, list_dependents, etc.) muddles the purpose and may confuse an AI agent about which action this tool performs.

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_financial_list_private_tables or other patient support list tools. The only alternative mentioned is feegow_patient_support_write for file uploads, which is not directly comparable.

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