Skip to main content
Glama

WebDiet

by io.github.mcp-dir

webdiet_anamnese_write_duplicate

Create / update anamnesis records in WebDiet. Actions: save (create or update — anamnese_id empty = new), save_interpretation (save AI/nutritionist interpretation), duplicate (copy existing record). For destructive removal use webdiet_anamnese_delete.

[Flattened action: duplicate]

Bulk support: accepts patient_ids, anamnese_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textoNo
tituloNo
accountNo
patient_idYes
anamnese_idNo
patient_idsNo
anamnese_idsNo
interpretacaoNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Description states it's a write (non-destructive) and duplicate action, but does not detail side effects, auth requirements, or behavior with bulk inputs. Annotations provide basic hints, no contradiction.

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?

Purpose stated first, then actions and bulk. Some redundancy (flattened action note), but no excessive wording. Could be more streamlined.

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?

Lacks explanation of most parameters, return behavior, and details on duplicate process. With low schema coverage and no output schema, agent is left with ambiguity.

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?

Low schema coverage and description only hints at bulk usage of patient_ids/anamnese_ids, leaving most parameters (texto, titulo, account, interpretacao) unexplained. Agent cannot infer how to fill parameters without guessing.

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 it duplicates anamnesis records, lists actions but flattens to duplicate, and distinguishes from sibling tools like webdiet_anamnese_delete and other write variants.

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?

States duplication purpose, references destructive deletion tool, implies save variants exist as siblings. Lacks explicit when-not advice but enough context.

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