Skip to main content
Glama

WebDiet

by io.github.mcp-dir

webdiet_patient_write_create

Create or update patients in WebDiet. Actions: create (nome + nascimento required — returns patient_id), update (partial fields). IMPORTANT: nascimento (birth date DD/MM/YYYY) is REQUIRED for create — WebDiet uses it to calculate age in prescriptions. Without it, metodoPlanning.php crashes with a Fatal Error. For destructive removal use webdiet_patient_delete.

[Flattened action: create]

Bulk support: accepts patient_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cepNo
cpfNo
nomeNo
emailNo
bairroNo
cidadeNo
estadoNo
generoNo
numeroNo
accountNo
apelidoNo
enderecoNo
telefoneNo
instagramNo
boasvindasNo
nascimentoNo
patient_idNo
complementoNo
patient_idsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes beyond annotations by warning that without nascimento, 'metodoPlanning.php crashes with a Fatal Error.' This is critical behavioral context not captured in annotations. Also mentions flattened action and bulk execution behavior.

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 mostly concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The warning about the crash is important. Minor redundancy: the '[Flattened action: create]' line could be integrated. Still efficient overall.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given 19 parameters, no output schema, and critical crash risk, the description covers the essential information: required fields, format, action distinction, bulk support, and safety warning. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the critical parameters (nome, nascimento) with format and reason. However, it does not elaborate on the other 17 parameters, though many are named intuitively.

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 explicitly states 'Create or update patients in WebDiet.' and distinguishes between create and update actions with required fields for create. It also mentions the sibling delete tool, clarifying scope.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: for create (nome + nascimento required), for update (partial fields), and explicitly directs destructive removal to webdiet_patient_delete. Also notes bulk support with patient_ids.

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