Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_procedure_insurance_list

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: insurance_list]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the detail 'Values in centavos,' which is useful but does not go beyond what annotations imply.

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 many actions irrelevant to this specific tool. The '[Flattened action: insurance_list]' note is helpful but the rest should be omitted for conciseness.

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 no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description fails to explain how to provide input (filters) or what the output contains beyond listing insurance plans. Essential context is missing.

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 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the two parameters (data, account). Filter options like procedimentoID are mentioned but not mapped to schema, leaving parameter meaning entirely unclear.

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?

The description explicitly states 'insurance_list: list insurance plans that accept a procedure' and the tool name matches, clearly indicating the purpose. However, the description is cluttered with other unrelated actions, slightly 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the other listed actions or sibling tools. The description does not differentiate usage context or exclusion criteria.

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