get_practice_profileGet one published public dental practice directory profile by slug. Returns public website, locations, services, rating summary, and profile URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly lists the returned data fields and limits the scope to 'published public' profiles, setting clear expectations. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but the read-only nature is evident from the verb 'get' and the 'public' qualifier.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence (22 words) that front-loads the action and resource, states the selection method, and enumerates the return fields. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: identification method ('by slug'), scope ('published public'), and return contents. It does not specify error scenarios, but given the simple get semantics, this is not a critical omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the tool description must compensate. It confirms the parameter's purpose ('by slug') but adds no format details, examples, or constraints beyond the schema's min/max length. This is a minimal but adequate contribution.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'one published public dental practice directory profile', and explicitly states the selection method 'by slug' and the return contents (public website, locations, services, rating summary, profile URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as get_dso_profile (different entity) and search_practices (search vs. direct fetch).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a clear usage context: use this when you have a specific slug and need a single published public practice profile. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the 'by slug' scoping makes the intended use unambiguous among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource type: search, get, compare, list, FAQ, and blog search are clearly separated, and entity types (DSO vs practice vs blog vs FAQ) are explicit. No two tools have overlapping purposes that could cause misselection.
Seven of eight tools follow the verb_noun pattern (compare_dsos, get_dso_profile, search_practices, etc.), while root_data_faq deviates as a noun phrase with no leading verb. This is a minor inconsistency in an otherwise predictable scheme.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a public directory server. Each tool earns its place, covering search, retrieval, comparison, ranking, and informational queries without redundancy or bloat.
For a read-only public directory, the surface is complete: both DSOs and practices have search and get operations, plus compare and list ranking for DSOs, and FAQ and blog search fill informational gaps. No critical operations are missing; optional search parameters ensure broad coverage.