Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_stock_write_entry

Write stock operations in Feegow. Numeric fields MUST be JSON numbers (integers), never strings — Feegow rejects "4" where 4 is expected. Actions:

  • insert: insert new product. PrecoCompra and PrecoVenda are REQUIRED integers (whole numbers, no decimals). Typical fields: NomeProduto (string), TipoProduto, CategoriaID, FabricanteID, ApresentacaoNome (string), ApresentacaoQuantidade, ApresentacaoUnidade, LocalizacaoID, EstoqueMinimo, EstoqueMaximo, DiasAvisoValidade (all integers).

  • entry: product entry into stock. Requires productId (integer), quantity (integer), date (string).

  • movement: product movement between locations.

  • exit: product exit from stock. Requires productId (integer), quantity (integer), date (string).

[Flattened action: entry]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
accountNo

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with a write operation. The description adds important behavioral details like the requirement for numeric values to be integers, not strings. However, it does not disclose authorization needs, side effects on existing data, or error conditions.

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 relatively long and includes detailed field lists for some actions, but it is poorly structured. Actions are listed without clear separation, and the 'Flattened action: entry' at the end is confusing. Key information could be presented more efficiently.

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 the complexity of four different stock operations and the poor schema (only generic data and account), the description is incomplete. It does not fully specify fields for all actions (e.g., movement is vague), ignores the account parameter, and lacks output schema or error handling details.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is vague (two string parameters: data and account) with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining the expected JSON structure within data for various actions, which is critical. However, it does not explain the account parameter, and the mapping from description to schema is implicit.

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 'Write stock operations in Feegow' and lists actions (insert, entry, movement, exit), giving a general idea. However, it is unclear how this tool relates to sibling tools like feegow_stock_write_insert, which seems to be a separate tool. The mention 'Flattened action: entry' adds confusion.

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 provides formatting requirements (numeric fields must be integers) but fails to guide when to use this tool versus the dedicated sibling tools for insert, exit, and movement. It does not specify prerequisites or context for choosing this combined tool.

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