Skip to main content
Glama

WebDiet

by io.github.mcp-dir

webdiet_preconsulta_get_response

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read pre-consultation questionnaires (Pré-consulta) in WebDiet. Actions:

  • list_templates → list all questionnaire templates the nutritionist publishes. Each item returns nome, descricao, perguntas[] (decoded), modelo, codigo, "link" (the public short URL https://nutr.se/ to share with patients) and "preview_url" (panel preview). USE THIS when the user asks for "o link do questionário de pré-consulta" / "link do formulário".

  • list_responses → list patient submissions to ANY template. Each response has id, id_code, template_nome, origem (anamnese | questionario), respondedor {nome, telefone, nascimento}, data, texto (decoded plain Q/A), texto_html (original HTML), pdf_url. Use filtros tipo (template name) and nome (responder name) to narrow.

  • get_response → fetch one response by id (or id_code/codigo). For LINKING a response to an existing patient (vincular), use webdiet_preconsulta_write action=link_to_patient.

[Flattened action: get_response]

Bulk support: accepts response_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nomeNo
tipoNo
limitNo
offsetNo
accountNo
response_idNo
response_idsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral details: bulk support via response_ids, output fields like 'link' and 'preview_url', and retrieval of PDF URLs. No contradictions 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 is structured with bullet points but is somewhat lengthy. It repeats the word 'Actions' and includes a redundant '[Flattened action: get_response]' line. Could be more concise while retaining clarity.

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?

The description details outputs for each sub-action but does not specify invocation logic (which parameters trigger which action) or default behavior when no parameters are provided. Missing error handling and rate limit info.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It only partially explains 'nome' and 'tipo' as filters for list_responses, but leaves 'limit', 'offset', 'account', 'response_ids' undocumented. The mapping of parameters to sub-actions is unclear.

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 'Read pre-consultation questionnaires' and lists three sub-actions (list_templates, list_responses, get_response), but the tool name 'get_response' implies a single retrieval. It distinguishes from sibling link tool but not from separate list tools, causing ambiguity.

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 only mentions using webdiet_preconsulta_write for linking, but does not explain when to use this combined tool vs. the existing sibling tools (webdiet_preconsulta_list_templates, webdiet_preconsulta_list_responses). No guidance on selecting sub-actions or default behavior.

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