Toofi Dental Planning MCP

Generate patient presentation

generate_patient_presentation

Idempotent

Generate a patient-facing Toofi presentation from a treatment plan with signed audit and C2PA-provenanced output surface.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plan_id`	No	Plan id for patient presentation generation.
`agent_id`	No	Calling agent identifier.
`plan_ref`	No	Plan reference for patient presentation generation.
`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.
`patient_ref`	No	Patient reference for patient presentation generation.
`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

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide idempotency and non-read-only hints. The description adds behavioral context about signed audit and C2PA-provenanced output surface, which goes beyond annotations. It doesn't mention potential side effects or permission requirements, but given the annotation coverage, this is a solid 4. No contradiction exists.

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 that immediately states the action and resource, and contains no filler words. Every phrase adds value: patient-facing, Toofi, signed audit, C2PA-provenanced. It is exceptionally concise and front-loaded.

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?

Despite an output schema and annotations, the tool has nine parameters and many siblings. The description is too brief to cover when to use it, how it relates to other generation tools, or what a 'Toofi presentation' is. The complex context demands a more thorough description.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with all nine parameters described. The description itself doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the phrase 'from a treatment plan' loosely maps to plan_id/plan_ref but doesn't elaborate. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it generates a patient-facing Toofi presentation from a treatment plan, with specifics about signed audit and C2PA provenance. This distinguishes it from sibling generation tools, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or explain what a Toofi presentation is, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like generate_treatment_plan_draft or generate_dental_treatment_plan_pdf. It lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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?