Toofi Dental Planning MCP

Example PDF result - Polish

example_pl

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the cached Polish Toofi example PDF artifact.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agent_id`	No	Calling agent identifier.
`clinic_id`	No	Clinic identifier for mandate-scoped production execution.
`intent_id`	No	Root agent intent id.
`mandate_id`	No	Clinic or agent mandate id. Optional in public demo mode.
`request_id`	No	Idempotency and correlation id echoed in Toofi responses.
`principal_id`	No	Human or clinic principal on whose behalf the agent acts.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`mode`	No
`status`	No
`endpoint`	No
`timestamp`	No

Schema Changelog

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

AddedMay 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'cached,' implying a fast, pre-generated artifact, and specifies it's a PDF, giving useful context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, immediately front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant wording.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple cached artifact retrieval with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential purpose. It doesn't explain what the PDF contains, but that is likely covered by the output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all six parameters documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'the cached Polish Toofi example PDF artifact,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like example_en and example_ru by specifying Polish.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving the Polish example PDF, and the sibling list shows other language variants, making the context clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or any exclusions.

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

All Toofi Dental Planning MCP 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

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, particularly example_en, example_pl, example_ru, example_sk, example_ua, example_uk, and get_example_result, which all return example PDFs. Also, example_ua and example_uk are explicitly aliases for the same Ukrainian example, creating direct ambiguity. Core clinical tools are distinct, but the example/demo cluster muddies the boundary.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_patients, create_agent_checkout_session, generate_price_estimate), but a few deviations exist: example_en/pl/ru/sk/ua/uk lack a verb prefix, and get_example_result seems to duplicate example_en. The 'pano' abbreviation in start_pano_markup is also slightly inconsistent. Overall, the pattern is mostly predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the count is too high for the apparent scope of dental planning. Many tools are redundant example/demo variants (e.g., 6 language-specific example tools plus get_example_result, and multiple demo getters/listers). This bloat suggests the tool set could be consolidated to a more focused 15-20 tools without losing core functionality.

Completeness3/5

The core workflow is covered: generating plans, retrieving patients/plans, pricing, and billing. However, there are notable gaps such as no update or delete operations for plans or patients, no create patient tool, and no way to modify pricing beyond import_price_csv. The demo tools partially compensate by offering sample data, but the production lifecycle is incomplete.

Resources

Need Help?