Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_patient_support_list_sources

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_sources]

Bulk support: accepts paciente_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo
paciente_idNo
paciente_idsNo

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe, read-only profile. The description adds that the tool supports batch execution via paciente_ids, providing extra behavioral context. However, the multi-action listing may mislead about the tool's 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 is verbose and includes a list of actions that appear to belong to sibling tools, leading to confusion. The 'Flattened action' note suggests the tool is only for list_sources, but the extraneous list is unnecessary and wastes space.

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?

Despite having annotations and no output schema, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It does not clearly define the tool's scope, does not describe all parameters, and includes irrelevant sub-actions that mislead about the tool's functionality.

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?

Input schema has 4 parameters (data, account, paciente_id, paciente_ids) with 0% schema description coverage. The description indirectly mentions paciente_id and paciente_ids in sub-action descriptions but does not explain data or account. This leaves critical parameters undocumented.

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 lists multiple distinct actions (list_sources, list_dependents, list_privates, etc.) without clarifying that the tool is actually only for list_sources (as per 'Flattened action: list_sources'). This conflates functionalities, obscuring the tool's core purpose. The name 'list_sources' suggests listing patient origins, but the description dilutes that.

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 mentions an alternative tool (feegow_patient_support_write) for uploading, but it does not differentiate this tool from other sibling list tools like feegow_patient_support_list_dependents, which are listed as sub-actions. This creates confusion about when to use this tool versus the dedicated sibling tools.

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