Skip to main content
Glama

WebDiet

by io.github.mcp-dir

webdiet_anamnese_write_save_interpretation

Create / update anamnesis records in WebDiet. Actions: save (create or update — anamnese_id empty = new), save_interpretation (save AI/nutritionist interpretation), duplicate (copy existing record). For destructive removal use webdiet_anamnese_delete.

[Flattened action: save_interpretation]

Bulk support: accepts patient_ids, anamnese_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textoNo
tituloNo
accountNo
patient_idYes
anamnese_idNo
patient_idsNo
anamnese_idsNo
interpretacaoNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations do not contradict (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the action can create or update based on anamnese_id, and supports batch execution via patient_ids/anamnese_ids. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though idempotency or error handling is not mentioned.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, then lists actions, destructive alternative, and bulk support. It is relatively concise (5 sentences) with no redundant information. A bit more structure could improve readability, but it's effective.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the action logic and bulk capability but lacks details on return values, error conditions, and the effect of missing optional fields. The required parameter (patient_id) is not highlighted. Thus, completeness is moderate.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in JSON schema). The description adds meaning for 'interpretacao' (interpretation field) and explains that anamnese_id empty means new record, and mentions batch parameters. However, parameters like texto, titulo, account remain unexplained, which is a gap.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool creates/updates anamnesis records with a flattened action of save_interpretation. It distinguishes from destructive deletion and other write tools (save, duplicate) by naming them explicitly, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a clear alternative for destructive removal (webdiet_anamnese_delete) and implies when to use this tool (for saving interpretations). However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling write tools like webdiet_anamnese_write_save or webdiet_anamnese_write_duplicate, which are separate tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All WebDiet 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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 Consistency2/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources