Toofi Dental Planning MCP

Get agent billing quote

get_agent_billing_quote

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a deterministic Toofi internal-credit quote for an agent tool call, including TTL, payment rails, Stripe checkout command, and x402-ready contract fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`units`	No
`agent_id`	No	Calling agent identifier.
`currency`	No		TOOFI_CREDIT
`clinic_id`	No	Clinic identifier for mandate-scoped production execution.
`intent_id`	No	Root agent intent id.
`tool_name`	No	MCP tool or Toofi command being priced.
`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

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses that the quote is deterministic and enumerates output fields (TTL, payment rails, Stripe command, x402 fields), adding detail beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations. No contradictions.

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?

One sentence with concrete details, front-loaded with the primary action and object. No wasted words.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient core context (determinism and response components) for a simple quote operation. Some explanation of when to use versus checkout tools is missing, but not required for this dimension.

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 coverage is 78%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning; it only mentions 'agent tool call' conceptually without mapping to specific params like tool_name or units.

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?

Description specifies 'Get a deterministic Toofi internal-credit quote for an agent tool call' with a concrete verb and resource, and lists distinct output components (TTL, payment rails, Stripe checkout command) that differentiate it from sibling tools like get_agent_credit_balance.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as create_agent_checkout_session or get_agent_credit_balance. Usage is only implied by the tool name and 'for an agent tool call'.

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?