Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_stock_write_exit

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: exit]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
accountNo

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds useful behavioral context such as requiring integer JSON numbers for numeric fields and listing required fields for each action. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., stock reduction on exit), idempotency, or error scenarios. Annotations provide minimal safety signals (destructiveHint=false) but the description doesn't elaborate.

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 details for multiple actions that are irrelevant to this tool's specific purpose. It redundantly lists fields per action and ends with an aside about flattened action. Much could be removed for clarity and conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of stock write operations (with multiple actions), minimal annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or prerequisites, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has only two parameters (data and account) with 0% description coverage. The description focuses on inner action details (e.g., fields for insert) but does not explain the format or structure of the 'data' parameter, leaving significant ambiguity for parameter construction.

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 states 'Write stock operations in Feegow' and lists multiple actions (insert, entry, movement, exit) but the tool name is specifically 'feegow_stock_write_exit', implying only exit operations. The inclusion of other actions makes the purpose ambiguous and misleading for an agent attempting to select the correct tool.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., feegow_stock_write_entry, feegow_stock_write_insert). It lists actions without differentiation, potentially causing an agent to misuse the tool for non-exit operations.

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