Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_patient_write_create

Create or edit patients in Feegow Clinic. Actions:

  • create: requires nome_completo and cpf (11 digits). Optional: data_nascimento (YYYY-MM-DD), genero (M/F), origem_id, celular, telefone, email, endereco, cidade, estado, cep, observacao, convenio_id, plano_id, matricula, titular, validade, tabela_id, nome_social, peso, altura.

  • edit: requires paciente_id. All other fields optional — only pass what you want to change.

[Flattened action: create]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
accountNo

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate mutation but not destructive. Description adds field details but does not disclose side effects like duplicate handling, concurrency behavior, or specific auth requirements beyond the tool name itself.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Description is structured with bullet points for create and edit actions, but the '[Flattened action: create]' note adds clutter. Could be more concise by removing redundancies and focusing on the JSON structure of data.

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 (two actions, many fields) and lack of output schema, description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, error scenarios, or how to handle the data parameter format. Significant gaps 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.

Parameters1/5

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

Input schema has only two string parameters (data, account), but description lists many fields (nome_completo, cpf, etc.) without indicating that data should be a JSON string containing those fields. With 0% schema coverage, description fails to explain the actual parameter structure, causing risk of misuse.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Create or edit patients' and specifies required fields for each action. Distinguishes from patient read tools like feegow_patient_get, feegow_patient_list, and feegow_patient_search_cpf. However, the note '[Flattened action: create]' introduces ambiguity about whether it also edits.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like feegow_patient_write_edit. Does not specify whether to prefer this for both create and edit or only create. Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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