Skip to main content
Glama

Feegow Clinic

by io.github.mcp-dir

feegow_stock_write_insert

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: insert]

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 non-readonly and non-destructive, but the description adds value by specifying numeric field requirements (integers, no strings) and required fields for insert. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error handling, leaving gaps.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is moderately concise but front-loads multiple actions and examples, making it longer than necessary. It could be restructured to clearly separate the main purpose from action-specific details.

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 multiple actions and absence of output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the exact format of the data string, the account parameter, or the 'Flattened action' concept, leaving significant gaps for agent invocation.

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?

Input schema has 2 parameters (data and account) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain how to structure the 'data' or 'account' parameters; it only lists fields for actions without mapping to the schema. Users lack critical information on how to pass the operation details.

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 it handles stock operations like insert, entry, movement, exit, and mentions 'Flattened action: insert'. However, the tool name suggests a specific purpose for inserts only, while the description includes multiple actions, causing ambiguity. It does clearly differentiate from sibling tools with similar prefixes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like feegow_stock_write_entry. The description lists actions but does not provide decision criteria or context for choosing one action over another.

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