Skip to main content
Glama

WebDiet

by io.github.mcp-dir

webdiet_financeiro_write

Create financial records in WebDiet. tipo: "entrada" for income (e.g. consultation payment received), "saida" for expense. Default income categories: Consulta, Retorno. Default expense categories: Internet, Aluguel. Use nova_cat to create a custom category. valor format: use comma for decimals (e.g. "300,00" or "150,50"). forma: payment method (e.g. Pix, Dinheiro, Cartão de crédito, Transferência). parcelas: number of installments (default 1). For installments, dataCobranca is the first billing date. For destructive delete use webdiet_financeiro_delete.

Bulk support: accepts patient_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cpfNo
dataNo
nomeNo
tipoNoentrada
formaNo
valorYes
accountNo
horarioNo
nova_catNo
parcelasNo1
categoriaNoConsulta
observacaoNo
patient_idYes
patient_idsNo
dataCobrancaNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are basic (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). The description adds moderate behavioral context: data format (comma for decimals), installment support, and custom categories via nova_cat. However, it does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or output behavior beyond creation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, with five sentences covering all key aspects: purpose, tipos, categories, format, installments, delete alternative, and bulk support. No redundant information; each sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential usage nuances (decimal comma, defaults, bulk) but lacks return value information. It is sufficient for creating records, though error handling or confirmation details are absent.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains tipo, valor format, forma, parcelas, dataCobranca, nova_cat, and patient_ids, but many parameters (cpf, data, nome, account, horario, categoria, observacao, patient_id) remain unexplained. The description adds meaningful context but not fully.

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 'Create financial records in WebDiet' and specifies the two tipos (entrada/saida) with examples, distinguishing it from the sibling webdiet_financeiro_delete for destructive operations. It also mentions bulk support, providing a clear scope of the tool's purpose.

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 explains when to use the tool (creating financial records) and explicitly points to webdiet_financeiro_delete for deletion. It gives examples for tipos and categories but does not cover when not to use it for updates or other scenarios, though the context is clear enough.

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