Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_stock_list_locations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read stock/inventory data in Feegow. Actions:

  • list_products: list products (perPage, page, id, location, category, producer, type).

  • get_position: product position/levels (perPage, page, fabricante, produto, categoria, localizacao, dataInicio, dataFim).

  • list_locations: stock locations (empty body {} lists all; each item has id, NomeLocalizacao, UnidadeID).

[Flattened action: list_locations]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
accountNo

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description mentions 'Read stock/inventory data' but includes actions from other tools, potentially misleading about the tool's actual behavior. It does not disclose that this tool only lists locations, or explain prerequisites or side effects.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is verbose and includes irrelevant actions (list_products, get_position) that belong to other tools. The essential information about list_locations is buried at the end. It is not concise and poorly structured, with a lot of redundant text.

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?

The tool is simple (list locations), but the description is complex and misleading. It partially mentions response fields for list_locations (id, NomeLocalizacao, UnidadeID), but omits explanation of parameters and does not clearly describe the tool's scope. Given the missing output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete.

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

Parameters1/5

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% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'empty body {} lists all' for list_locations, but does not explain what the 'data' and 'account' parameters represent. It fails to add any meaningful semantics beyond the schema, and even creates confusion by suggesting a body parameter that doesn't exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a broad statement about reading stock/inventory data, then lists three actions (list_products, get_position, list_locations) which belong to sibling tools. The '[Flattened action: list_locations]' hint implies this tool only lists locations, but the description is misleading and does not clearly state the tool's specific function.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description fails to guide when to use this tool vs alternatives like feegow_stock_list_products or feegow_stock_get_position. Instead, it lists those actions as if this tool performs them, creating confusion. No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is provided.

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