Skip to main content
Glama

WebDiet

by io.github.mcp-dir

webdiet_orientacoes_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read "Listas e Orientações" (guidelines/orientation lists) in WebDiet. Actions: list (orientation records for a patient), list_banco (orientation bank / favorites — saved templates available to send to any patient). The orientation bank contains nutritionist's saved/favorite orientations (e.g. "Chás diuréticos", "Refeições livres") that can be sent to any patient. Use list_banco to see available names, then pass those exact names to webdiet_orientacoes_write action=send.

[Flattened action: list]

Bulk support: accepts patient_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limiteNo
accountNo
patient_idNo
patient_idsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that it supports bulk execution via patient_ids and distinguishes between two actions (list vs list_banco). However, the action distinction may be misleading given the existence of a dedicated list_banco tool, so the added value is moderate.

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 about 6 sentences, which is moderately concise. However, it includes redundant references to 'list_banco' that are not clearly demarcated as belonging to this tool, and the structure could be improved by separating action definitions more clearly.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not describe the return format or fields. The bulk support mention is helpful, but details on how to select between actions (list vs list_banco) are missing. The tool's interaction with sibling tools is partially hinted but not fully explained.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage; the description only explains the 'patient_ids' parameter for bulk support. 'account', 'limite', and 'patient_id' are undocumented. The description does not compensate for the missing schema explanations, leaving most parameters opaque.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool reads 'Listas e Orientações' and mentions two actions ('list' and 'list_banco'), but this conflates with a sibling tool 'webdiet_orientacoes_list_banco'. The purpose is somewhat clear but muddled by including an action that likely belongs to another tool, reducing clarity.

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 suggests using 'list_banco' to view templates before sending via a write tool, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus the separate 'webdiet_orientacoes_list_banco' sibling. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selection criteria are provided.

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