Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_patient_write_edit

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: edit]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
accountNo

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations confirm it's a write operation, but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It fails to clarify that the input schema does not match the described fields, and it does not disclose success/error behavior, idempotency, or side effects. The misleading note at the end undermines transparency.

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?

The description is relatively concise with a list format, but the final line '[Flattened action: edit]' is unnecessary and confusing. It could be restructured to clearly separate create and edit actions without redundancy.

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 of patient creation/editing and the lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the 'data' parameter should be structured (e.g., as a JSON object), nor does it cover return values or error conditions. The separate feegow_patient_write_create tool suggests this tool is redundant or specialized, but no context is provided.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters (data, account) with 0% description coverage. The description completely ignores these parameters and instead describes client fields that are not present in the schema. This misaligns the description with the actual tool interface, providing no useful semantic meaning to the 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 'Create or edit patients' which is a clear verb+resource, but it does not differentiate from the sibling feegow_patient_write_create, creating confusion. The note '[Flattened action: edit]' contradicts the initial statement, reducing clarity.

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 instead of feegow_patient_write_create or other patient tools. The description lists required fields for create and edit but does not provide context on when each action is appropriate or when to avoid this tool.

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