Skip to main content
Glama

WebDiet

by io.github.mcp-dir

webdiet_get_upload_command

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns a ready-to-run curl command that uploads a file directly to the server without reading it into context. RECOMMENDED for large files (images, PDFs, lab results). The flow:

  1. Call this tool with the file_path the user provided

  2. Execute the returned curl command in your code execution sandbox (or tell the user to run it)

  3. The command returns a JSON with a "code" (e.g. "file-a1b2c3d4")

  4. Call webdiet_upload_anexo with upload_code=that_code to attach it to the patient This avoids loading large file contents into the conversation context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNo
file_nameNo
file_pathYes

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which are consistent. The description adds behavioral context: the command returns a JSON with a 'code', and the workflow avoids loading large files into context. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise yet informative, with a clear flow: states purpose, recommends usage, lists steps, and explains benefit. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers the main workflow and return value (curl command with code), but lacks details on error handling, input validation, authentication needs, or the exact format of the curl command. Given the absence of an output schema, more completeness would be helpful.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description only references 'file_path' implicitly, ignoring 'account' and 'file_name'. It does not clarify their purpose or format, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns a curl command for uploading files, specifies the resource (upload command) and action (returns). It distinguishes from siblings like webdiet_upload_anexo by outlining the two-step process.

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?

Explicitly recommends for large files and provides a step-by-step flow. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for small files one could possibly upload directly).

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