WebDiet

webdiet_patient_write_update

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: update]

Bulk support: accepts patient_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cep`	No
`cpf`	No
`nome`	No
`email`	No
`bairro`	No
`cidade`	No
`estado`	No
`genero`	No
`numero`	No
`account`	No
`apelido`	No
`endereco`	No
`telefone`	No
`instagram`	No
`boasvindas`	No
`nascimento`	No
`patient_id`	No
`complemento`	No
`patient_ids`	No

Schema Changelog

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

First observedJun 10, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond annotations by warning about the crash if nascimento is missing during create, and notes that update allows partial fields. It also clarifies this tool is not for destruction. However, it does not disclose idempotency or other error conditions. The warning adds significant value.

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 moderately concise but contains extraneous elements like '[Flattened action: update]' and the 'IMPORTANT' warning, which while valuable, could be better integrated. The structure is somewhat fragmented, mixing usage notes, warnings, and hints.

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?

Given the complexity (19 parameters, no output schema, no annotation details), the description covers only core create/update semantics and a critical failure mode. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and many parameter meanings, making it incomplete for effective tool use.

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?

With 19 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description only clarifies 'nome' and 'nascimento' for create, and mentions 'patient_ids' for bulk. The other 16 parameters (e.g., cep, cpf, email) have no explanation, leaving the agent uninformed about their purpose or constraints.

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 it creates or updates patients, which is clear. However, there is a sibling tool 'webdiet_patient_write_create' that likely focuses on creation, and the description does not distinguish when to use this tool versus that one. The '[Flattened action: update]' note adds ambiguity.

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?

It provides guidance for create vs update (required fields for create) and mentions when to use delete. But it fails to differentiate from the sibling 'webdiet_patient_write_create' or give criteria for bulk vs single use. The guidance is present but incomplete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All WebDiet tools Inspect

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.

webdiet_patient_write_update

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources