Permanently delete an anamnesis record in WebDiet. Irreversible.
Bulk support: accepts patient_ids, anamnese_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| patient_id | Yes | ||
| anamnese_id | Yes | ||
| patient_ids | No | ||
| anamnese_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true. The description adds 'Irreversible' and 'bulk support', which reinforces the permanent nature. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, auth needs) are disclosed, but the annotations carry the safety burden. Acceptable for a simple delete operation.
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 very concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, no fluff.
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 has 5 parameters (0% schema description), no output schema, and is destructive, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, prerequisites (e.g., account authentication), or how to use the singular required parameters. Sibling tools are clearly related, but the description lacks differentiation details beyond name.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'patient_ids, anamnese_ids for batched execution' but does not clarify the singular required parameters (patient_id, anamnese_id) or the account parameter. This leaves ambiguity about how to perform single vs. bulk deletions.
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 clearly states the action ('permanently delete') and the resource ('anamnesis record'), and explicitly mentions irreversibility. It distinguishes from sibling tools like webdiet_anamnese (list/get) and webdiet_anamnese_write_save (create/update) by focusing on deletion.
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?
The description indicates when to use the tool (for deletion, including bulk operations via patient_ids and anamnese_ids). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context and name make usage clear.
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.
Tools are split by action (e.g., separate list, get, write tools for each resource), which makes boundaries somewhat clear, but the sheer number of similar tools (62 total) and repeated descriptions create confusion. An agent must carefully read each tool to pick the correct one, especially when multiple write tools exist for the same resource.
Naming conventions are inconsistent. Some tools use `webdiet_<resource>_write_<action>`, others use `webdiet_<resource>_<action>` (e.g., `webdiet_calculo_energetico_write_create` vs. `webdiet_create_antropometria`). There are also tools like `webdiet_food_search` that break the pattern. This makes it hard to predict tool names.
62 tools is excessive for a nutritionist platform. Many action variants (list, get, create, save, publish, delete, etc.) are split into separate tools rather than parameterized within a single tool. This bloats the tool list and could be consolidated to ~20-30 tools without losing functionality.
The server covers a very wide range of features: patient management, anamnesis, anthropometry, energy calculations, prescriptions (with multiple methods), financials, pre-consultation questionnaires, orientations, food search, file upload, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool for meal reactions), but overall the surface is comprehensive for its domain.