Skip to main content
Glama
fabianofilho

revisor-notas

by fabianofilho
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Related Servers

Alternatives to revisor-notas

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • perimeter-mcp

      Cocongas
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables coding assistants to check code for common health-data mistakes locally without an account, and, with a configured core service, de-identify clinical text, restore placeholders, and append tamper-evident audit log entries.
      MIT

    • Juno Health Tools MCP app

      MarshallBear1
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      A
      maintenance
      Enables users to organise messy symptom notes into a clearer, portable appointment-preparation record through privacy-conscious tools for ChatGPT and Codex. It processes submitted text in memory without intentionally persisting it, supporting symptom diary capture and appointment-prep workflows.
      MIT

    • Konsilium

      CPT-Rabbit
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables privacy-first medical document analysis with multi-perspective AI review. Ingest documents, run consilium reviews, generate doctor letters, and search patient memory—all through natural language.
      Apache 2.0

    • HealthChain MCP Server

      Kunwgh
      A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to access validated FHIR/EHR data and healthcare tools through the Model Context Protocol, supporting secure clinical data processing and LangChain integration.
      Apache 2.0
    Deploy Server
    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

    TDQS

    A4.4/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools are clearly related but serve distinct output purposes: one produces a validation report, the other an annotated version of the note. Descriptions explicitly differentiate them, though an agent might briefly hesitate about which to call for a given user request.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern in Portuguese, using snake_case: validar_nota_soap and sugerir_correcoes. The convention is consistent and the verbs accurately describe the actions.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only two tools, the server is on the smaller side, but they cover the two core operations for a note reviewer: validate and suggest corrections. The count feels reasonable rather than thin because each tool is substantial and has a clear purpose.

    Completeness4/5

    The domain is clinical note review, and the pair covers validation (including semantic checks) and actionable inline suggestions. There are no obvious dead ends, though a tool for a structured list of errors separately from annotation is already covered by validar_nota_soap.

    Maintenance

    ActivityMaintained
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources