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: create]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| account | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide limited information (readOnlyHint=false). The description mentions create/update actions but does not disclose behavioral impacts, such as required permissions, idempotency, or side effects. For a mutable tool, this is insufficient.
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 somewhat redundant, repeating 'Create / update proposals' and including a mixed list of actions with a confusing flattening note. It could be more concise and structured.
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 two actions and many siblings, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the relationship with feegow_proposal_write_change_status, the format of the data parameter, or what the tool returns. No output schema makes it harder to assess completeness.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists fields for 'create' (proposer_id, paciente_id, etc.) and 'change_status' (proposal_id, status_id), adding some semantics. However, it does not specify that data is a JSON string or explain the account parameter, leaving gaps.
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 then lists actions 'create' and 'change_status', ending with '[Flattened action: create]', which is contradictory and unclear. It does not clearly distinguish from the sibling tool feegow_proposal_write_change_status.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings or whether to use 'create' or 'change_status' actions. The description lacks explicit usage context or alternatives.
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.