Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_professional_list

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: list]

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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by mentioning bulk support behavior, but otherwise does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 structured with actions and bulk support, but is somewhat verbose and includes technical notes like '[Flattened action: list]' that may confuse agents. It could be more concise without losing clarity.

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 8 parameters, zero output schema, and multiple sub-modes, the description lacks completeness. It doesn't explain return values, mutual exclusivity of parameters, or the purpose of the 'account' parameter. The bulk support description is vague.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining parameters per action (e.g., 'list requires ativo (0=inactive, 1=active)', 'get requires profissional_id', etc.) and describing bulk parameters. However, not all parameters (e.g., account) are explicitly documented.

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 clearly states 'Read professionals (doctors, specialists)' and lists three specific actions (list, get, insurance) with parameter requirements. It distinguishes from sibling tools like feegow_professional_get and feegow_professional_insurance by bundling multiple functionalities, but still provides clear purpose.

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?

The description does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus its sibling tools (e.g., feegow_professional_get for single professional detail). It mentions 'Flattened action: list' and 'Bulk support' but lacks clear context on when to choose list, get, or insurance, and when to use bulk 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