Skip to main content
Glama

WebDiet

by io.github.mcp-dir

webdiet_financeiro_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read financial records (payments, receipts) in WebDiet. Actions: list (all records in date range — defaults to last 30 days), categories (get available categories for income/expense). Each record includes: id, nome, tipo (entrada=income, saida=expense), categoria, valor, data, observacao, recibo status, and recibo_url when receipt was generated. Use inicio/fim in YYYYMMDDHHmm format to filter by date range (e.g. "202604010000" to "202604302359" for April 2026).

[Flattened action: list]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fimNo
tipoNoentrada
inicioNo
accountNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context: default last-30-day range, date format, and record fields. However, it does not discuss pagination, error handling, or rate limits.

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 structured but a bit wordy, including actions, record fields, and date format. The 'Flattened action: list' note is redundant. It could be more concise without losing clarity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Since no output schema exists, the description appropriately details returned fields. It explains the date format and defaults. While pagination and ordering are absent, the coverage is good for a read list tool. The missing 'account' param detail is a minor gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'inicio' and 'fim' format and defaults, and 'tipo' enum values. 'account' parameter is not mentioned. Thus, it provides moderate meaning beyond the schema for 3 of 4 parameters.

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 states 'Read financial records' and specifies it lists records in a date range. It distinguishes from sibling tools like webdiet_financeiro_categories, webdiet_financeiro_delete, and webdiet_financeiro_write, but the mention of 'categories' as an action within the same tool creates minor ambiguity. Overall, the core purpose is clear.

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest better-suited sibling tools like webdiet_financeiro_categories for category retrieval.

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