Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_proposal_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read proposals (treatment plans with pricing) in Feegow. Values in R$. Actions:

  • list: list proposals for patient. Optional: paciente_id, data_inicio (DD-MM-YYYY), data_fim (DD-MM-YYYY), tipo_data (A=last update, I=creation).

  • list_by_date: list proposals by date (data_proposta, data_alteracao YYYY-MM-DD, PacienteID).

  • get_url: get proposal URL (proposta_id). For creating / changing status use feegow_proposal_write.

[Flattened action: 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds context on data type and date formats, but the multi-action claim contradicts the likely single-action tool, reducing 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 but includes extraneous action details and a flattened action note. Could be more structured.

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?

Lacks return value description, and parameter mapping is inconsistent with schema. Incomplete for an effective tool usage.

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 has only 'data' and 'account' with no description, 0% coverage. Description mentions parameters like paciente_id, data_inicio, etc., but these do not match the schema, causing confusion.

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 it reads proposals, but includes multiple actions (list, list_by_date, get_url) that are actually separate sibling tools, creating confusion. The flattened action note suggests it only does 'list', but the description misleads.

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?

Only explicitly says not to use for create/change status (directs to feegow_proposal_write). No differentiation from similar read tools feegow_proposal_list_by_date and feegow_proposal_get_url, which are implied as actions.

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