Create / update proposals in Feegow. Actions:
create: create proposal. Requires proposer_id (sys_user), paciente_id, status_id (1-5), proposal_date (DD-MM-YYYY), procedimentos array. Status: 1=Awaiting client, 2=Approved, 3=Rejected, 4=Awaiting financing, 5=Executed.
change_status: update proposal status (proposal_id, status_id).
[Flattened action: change_status]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but no destructive hint. The description adds that it creates/updates proposals, but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, or the response format. The parameter details for create are not tied to the actual schema, leaving behavior opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is of moderate length but includes extraneous details for 'create' action while the tool is for 'change_status'. It could be more focused and succinct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's implied dual-action purpose, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to specify the action, what the response looks like, and lacks output schema. For a mutation tool, critical context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (data, account) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain these parameters; instead it lists unrelated fields for the 'create' action. It adds no semantic meaning to the schema parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create / update proposals' but the tool name is specifically 'change_status', creating ambiguity. The 'Flattened action: change_status' note attempts to clarify, but the inclusion of 'create' action details is misleading. The description fails to clearly state the tool's singular purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'feegow_proposal_write_create'. The description implies two actions but does not differentiate their contexts or prerequisites. It lacks when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.