Skip to main content
Glama

WebDiet

by io.github.mcp-dir

webdiet_manipulados_write_save

Create / send / publish / duplicate manipulados in WebDiet. Actions:

  • save → create or update a manipulado for a patient. texto = raw HTML (tinyMCE content), nome = formula name. Omit manipulado_id to create; pass it to update an existing one. Returns id and pdf_url.

  • send → SHORTCUT prescribir + publicar: copia uma ou mais fórmulas do banco (por nome exato vindo de webdiet_manipulados list_banco) para o paciente como manipulados novos. Já fica liberado=true (visível no app/portal do paciente) imediatamente. Skips fórmulas bloqueadas com mensagem de erro.

  • publish → toggle liberar/disponibilizar status (makes the formula visible/invisible on the patient portal/app). Server toggles and returns the NEW state.

  • duplicate → duplicate an existing manipulado (creates a copy "(cópia)").

For destructive delete use webdiet_manipulados_delete.

[Flattened action: save]

Bulk support: accepts patient_ids, manipulado_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nomeNo
nomesNo
textoNo
accountNo
patient_idYes
patient_idsNo
manipulado_idNo
manipulado_idsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses mutating behaviors (create, update, toggle, copy) beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It adds context such as send making formulas visible immediately and publish toggling status. No contradictions with annotations. Minor omission: does not detail auth or rate limits, but acceptable.

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 well-structured with bullet points for actions and examples. However, the note '[Flattened action: save]' introduces confusion and the text is slightly verbose. Overall, clear and informative.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions, batch support), the description is fairly complete. It mentions return values (id, pdf_url) for save, and bulk support. Lacks details on other actions' returns but sufficient for most use cases.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining nome, texto, and manipulado_id. However, parameters account, patient_ids, manipulado_ids are not described, leaving gaps. Partial compensation, but not comprehensive.

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 clearly states the tool creates, sends, publishes, or duplicates manipulados, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from the destructive sibling tool webdiet_manipulados_delete, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

For each action (save, send, publish, duplicate), the description explains when to use it (e.g., 'Omit manipulado_id to create; pass it to update') and explicitly advises using the sibling tool for destructive deletion. This provides excellent guidance on alternatives.

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