Skip to main content
Glama

Toofi Dental Planning MCP

Get demo presentation

get_demo_presentation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get one public no-PHI Toofi demo patient presentation shape with provenance surface fields.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_idNoToofi demo plan_id. Defaults to the primary demo record.
agent_idNoCalling agent identifier.
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.
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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those hints: the data is 'public no-PHI' and the result includes 'provenance surface fields.' This meaningfully enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool returns and its data sensitivity.

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, front-loaded sentence that is specific and free of filler. Every phrase earns its place by conveying the tool's scope (one, public, no-PHI, demo) and output focus ('provenance surface fields').

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 rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequately complete for a simple read-only getter. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. Minor gap: it could state that this is the preferred alternative to generate_patient_presentation for demo data, but overall it is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not detail individual parameters, but the phrase 'with provenance surface fields' hints at the purpose of the many correlation/id parameters (e.g., request_id, mandate_id). This is a slight semantic bonus but does not exceed the baseline substantially.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('one public no-PHI Toofi demo patient presentation shape'), and the distinguishing qualifiers ('demo', 'provenance surface fields'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like generate_patient_presentation, which implies creation rather than retrieval.

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 provides clear context: this is for retrieving a public, no-PHI demo presentation shape. It implies use for demo scenarios and suggests non-production data. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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