Skip to main content
Glama

WebDiet

by io.github.mcp-dir

webdiet_orientacoes_write_save

Create / update / send "Listas e Orientações" in WebDiet. Actions: save (create/update an orientation for a patient), send (send orientation(s) from the bank to a patient by exact name). save: non-ASCII emojis in "texto" are encoded as HTML numeric entities so they render on the patient portal (avoids "?" placeholders). If "titulo" is set, an with the title is prepended to "texto" for the patient view (portal does not show titulo alone).

[Flattened action: save]

Bulk support: accepts patient_ids, orientacao_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nomesNo
textoNo
tituloNo
accountNo
patient_idYes
patient_idsNo
orientacao_idNo
orientacao_idsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations, such as HTML entity encoding for emojis and title prepending. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive nature, and the description aligns with that without contradiction.

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 relatively concise but includes an unclear 'Flattened action: save' line and redundant information. It could be more structured and remove ambiguity without adding length.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain return values or results, which it does not. It also fails to clarify the scope of the 'send' action within this tool, leaving gaps for an agent in understanding the full tool behavior.

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?

With 0% schema parameter descriptions, the description partially compensates by explaining 'texto' and 'titulo' behavior, but it does not cover all 8 parameters (e.g., 'nomes', 'account', 'orientacao_id'). The explanation adds value but is incomplete.

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 the tool can create/update/send 'Listas e Orientações', but the name suggests only 'save', and there is a sibling tool for 'send'. The mention of 'send' action within this tool creates ambiguity about its exact purpose relative to the sibling.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'webdiet_orientacoes_write_send'. The description includes 'send' as an action here, which conflicts with the sibling's existence, potentially misleading an agent about tool selection.

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