Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_procedure_groups

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read procedures in Feegow. Values in centavos. Actions:

  • list: list procedures + values. Filter by tipo_procedimento, procedimento_id, unidade_id, paciente_id, especialidade_id, profissional_id, tabela_id, nome_procedimento.

  • types: list procedure types (Cirurgia, Consulta, Exame, Procedimento, Retorno).

  • insurance_list: list insurance plans that accept a procedure (by procedimentoID or nomeProcedimento).

  • franchise: list imported franchise procedures (requires unidade_id).

  • bundles: list procedure bundles/packages (optional procedimento_id, pacote_id).

  • groups: list procedure groups (optional grupo_id).

[Flattened action: groups]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Read procedures in Feegow. Values in centavos.' but no further behavioral traits. Adequate but relies heavily on 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 verbose, listing actions that belong to other tools (e.g., types, insurance_list, franchise) despite the flattened action note indicating it's only for groups. This wastes space and could confuse the agent.

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?

For a tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does not explain the input parameters or return format. It omits critical details about how to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two schema parameters ('data' and 'account'). Instead, it lists filter parameters not in the schema, which is misleading. The description fails to add meaning to the actual parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'list procedure groups (optional grupo_id)' and the flattened action note confirms the tool is specifically for groups. It distinguishes from sibling tools like feegow_procedure_list and feegow_procedure_types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context for when to use the 'groups' action and lists filter parameters. However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use it versus alternatives like feegow_procedure_bundles.

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