Skip to main content
Glama

Toofi Dental Planning MCP

Generate price estimate

generate_price_estimate
Idempotent

Generate a Toofi price estimate from treatment-plan and clinic pricing inputs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_idNoPlan id for price estimate generation.
agent_idNoCalling agent identifier.
plan_refNoPlan reference for price estimate generation.
clinic_idNoClinic identifier for mandate-scoped production execution.
intent_idNoRoot agent intent id.
mandate_idNoClinic or agent mandate id. Optional in public demo mode.
request_idNoIdempotency and correlation id echoed in Toofi responses.
patient_refNoPatient reference for price estimate generation.
principal_idNoHuman or clinic principal on whose behalf the agent acts.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
modeNo
statusNo
endpointNo
timestampNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, idempotency implications, or external service interactions. It does not contradict the annotations but also fails to add value beyond them.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse.

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 good schema coverage and annotations, the description is too sparse for a tool with 9 optional parameters, openWorldHint, and several related siblings. It does not explain when to use this tool, how it differs from similar tools, or what the openWorldHint implies for execution. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but usage context is lacking.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only vaguely mentions 'treatment-plan and clinic pricing inputs' without explaining specific parameters like plan_id, clinic_id, or request_id. It adds minimal semantic value over the schema.

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 the action 'Generate a Toofi price estimate' and mentions the inputs 'from treatment-plan and clinic pricing inputs.' This is a specific verb+resource statement. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_agent_billing_quote', which could also relate to pricing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. For example, it does not clarify the relationship between 'generate_price_estimate' and 'get_agent_billing_quote', leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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

Try in Browser

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