Skip to main content
Glama

WebDiet

by io.github.mcp-dir

webdiet_orientacoes_write_send

Create / update / send "Listas e Orientações" in WebDiet. Actions: save (create/update an orientation for a patient), send (send orientation(s) from the bank to a patient by exact name). save: non-ASCII emojis in "texto" are encoded as HTML numeric entities so they render on the patient portal (avoids "?" placeholders). If "titulo" is set, an with the title is prepended to "texto" for the patient view (portal does not show titulo alone).

[Flattened action: send]

Bulk support: accepts patient_ids, orientacao_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nomesNo
textoNo
tituloNo
accountNo
patient_idYes
patient_idsNo
orientacao_idNo
orientacao_idsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains emoji encoding in 'texto', the prepending of <h1> for 'titulo', and bulk support. Annotations already indicate read/write intent (readOnlyHint=false) but the description provides meaningful side-effect details. No contradiction with annotations.

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 uses a mix of sentences and bullet points, but the structure is somewhat disjointed. The 'Flattened action: send' line interrupts the flow. It is not excessively long but could be more concise and logically organized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 actions, 8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key behaviors but fails to fully explain how to switch between save and send actions or the role of all parameters. Annotations are minimal, and while the description adds some completeness, it is not comprehensive enough for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage, the explanation of 'texto' encoding, 'titulo' rendering, and bulk support for patient_ids/orientacao_ids adds value. However, key parameters like 'nomes', 'account', and 'orientacao_id' (singular) remain unexplained. Only about half of the 8 parameters are addressed, leaving gaps.

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 the tool can 'Create / update / send Listas e Orientações' which provides a clear verb+resource. However, the mention of two actions (save and send) and the flattened action 'send' creates some ambiguity about the primary function. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool webdiet_orientacoes_write_save, but the context implies this tool specializes in sending.

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?

The description implies usage for sending orientations from the bank to a patient by exact name, and mentions bulk support. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus webdiet_orientacoes_write_save or other siblings. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given.

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