Skip to main content
Glama

DietBox

by io.github.mcp-dir

dietbox_anamnese_write_create

Create or update an anamnesis (health history questionnaire) in Dietbox. Actions:

  • create: cria nova anamnese. Obrigatório: patient_id. Opcional: descricao, texto_livre (HTML), tipo (1=completa default, 2=simplificada), data (ISO), overrides (map com qualquer campo extra: fuma, diabetes, medicamentos, alergias, ...).

  • update: atualiza uma anamnese existente. Obrigatório: anamnesis_id. Demais campos sobrescrevem os atuais. Retorna { id } da anamnese criada/atualizada.

[Flattened action: create]

Bulk support: accepts patient_ids, anamnesis_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
tipoNo
accountNo
descricaoNo
overridesNo
patient_idNo
patient_idsNo
texto_livreNo
anamnesis_idNo
anamnesis_idsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns { id } and supports bulk operations, but does not discuss auth, rate limits, or effects of overrides beyond the schema.

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 reasonably structured with bullet points for actions and parameters. However, it includes a confusing technical note '[Flattened action: create]' and could be more streamlined.

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 essential aspects: actions, required/optional fields, bulk support, and return value. Lacks clarification on sibling tool differentiation and full parameter details, but adequate for a write tool with no output schema.

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?

The description explains several parameters (patient_id, descricao, texto_livre as HTML, tipo values, data as ISO, overrides as map) but omits the 'account' parameter and does not fully cover all schema properties, given 0% schema description coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it creates or updates an anamnesis and lists the two actions with their required fields. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'dietbox_anamnese_write_update', which may cause confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides guidance on when to use create vs update (required patient_id vs anamnesis_id) and mentions optional fields. Lacks context on when to choose this tool over the write_update sibling or any exclusions.

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

All DietBox 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

B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have nearly identical descriptions, differing only by a single action name (e.g., dietbox_agenda_list vs dietbox_agenda_summary, multiple anamnesis read tools). This makes it hard for an agent to choose the correct tool. The splitting of CRUD operations into separate tools per action creates significant overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most Dietbox tools follow a consistent `dietbox_<entity>_<action>` snake_case pattern, but tools like `authenticate`, `connect`, `marketplace`, `report_bug`, `show_version`, and `toolkit_info` break this, making naming partially inconsistent. Overall, the pattern is clear for the core domain.

Tool Count2/5

With 42 tools, the server is overburdened. Many tools are redundant due to splitting actions (e.g., three read tools for anamnesis), and non-domain tools (marketplace, bug reporting) inflate the count unnecessarily. A more streamlined set of 15-20 tools would be more appropriate.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of nutrition practice features: patients, appointments, anamnesis, anthropometry, chat, food diary, goals, finances, meal plans (read-only), prescriptions, and clinical records. However, notable write operations are missing (meal plans, goals, finance transactions), and some read-only tools lack corresponding edits.

Resources