WebDiet

webdiet_patient_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read patients in WebDiet. Actions: list (the WHOLE patient base, paginated — returns id, nome, link, updated_at, created_at), get (full profile with address, phone, links to panel sections). list returns "total" (patients matching the filter), "total_na_conta" (patients in the account) and "has_more"; walk pages with page/page_size until has_more is false. Filters (all optional, combinable): keyword (matches name, nickname, email, phone or CPF, accent-insensitive), updated_since / updated_until (YYYY-MM-DD), order. "updated_at" is when the patient RECORD was last changed in WebDiet — it is the only per-patient timestamp the panel exposes, and it does NOT track a patient chart merely being opened/viewed. Use updated_since to answer "who moved in the last N days". The "id" is stable across calls. Use it as patient_id for get, update and prescriptions. The "link" is a different identifier for the paciente.me portal; only patient_delete also resolves a portal link or a unique phone/name keyword.

[Flattened action: list]

Bulk support: accepts patient_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`page`	No
`order`	No	nome
`account`	No
`keyword`	No
`page_size`	No
`patient_id`	No
`patient_ids`	No
`updated_since`	No
`updated_until`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedAug 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / order

Added value: +{
+  "default": "nome",
+  "enum": [
+    "nome",
+    "atualizado_desc",
+    "atualizado_asc"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / updated_since
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedInput schema / properties / updated_until
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

First observedJun 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds a large amount of behavioral context beyond that: pagination semantics with total, total_na_conta and has_more, field sets, the subtle updated_at timestamp caveat, stable ids, and the portal link distinction. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but organized: the core purpose is front-loaded, then pagination, filters, timestamp semantics, and id/link resolution follow in logical order. Some portal/delete/get detail is tangential for a list tool, but it earns its place by preventing identifier misuse.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly self-contained. It explains the response's important fields, how to paginate, which filters to use, when the timestamp is meaningful, and how to map ids/links. An agent can call this correctly without external docs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the prose carries the full parameter burden, and it does so well: keyword matching fields, accent-insensitivity, page/page_size walking, date format, updated_since semantics, and bulk patient_ids are all explained. The account parameter and the singular patient_id are not meaningfully described, and order is left to the enum, so it stops short of a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — "Read patients in WebDiet" — and immediately enumerates the two behaviors (list and get) with the exact payloads they return. It also draws clear lines around ids, links, and patient_delete so the tool can't be confused with its siblings.

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?

It gives actionable guidance: use updated_since to answer "who moved in the last N days", understand that updated_at does not track chart views, and use id as patient_id for downstream calls. It even names patient_delete as the only tool that resolves a portal link or unique keyword, although it doesn't explicitly spell out when-not-to-use the other patient_write siblings.

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

All WebDiet tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

webdiet_patient_list

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources