Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_professional_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read professionals (doctors, specialists) in Feegow. Actions:

  • list: list professionals. Requires ativo (0=inactive, 1=active). Optional: unidade_id, especialidade_id.

  • get: full detail + specialties for a professional (requires profissional_id).

  • insurance: list insurance plans accepted by a professional (requires profissional_id).

[Flattened action: get]

Bulk support: accepts profissional_ids, unidade_ids, especialidade_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ativoNo
accountNo
unidade_idNo
unidade_idsNo
profissional_idNo
especialidade_idNo
profissional_idsNo
especialidade_idsNo

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds bulk support and action-specific parameter requirements, but does not mention pagination, error handling, or return format. It provides moderate behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise with a clear heading, bulleted actions, and a note on bulk support. The line '[Flattened action: get]' is jargon and slightly confusing, detracting from overall clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description only hints at return values (e.g., 'list professionals', 'full detail + specialties'). It lacks information on error conditions, pagination, or rate limits, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains most parameters (ativo, unidade_id, especialidade_id, profissional_id) and bulk variants. However, the 'account' parameter is undocumented, and the relationship between singular and plural parameters is 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 states it reads professionals and lists three actions (list, get, insurance) with parameter hints. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'feegow_professional_list' and 'feegow_professional_insurance', which could cause confusion.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use each action via required parameters (e.g., list requires ativo, get requires profissional_id). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools or when to use bulk vs singular parameters.

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