Toofi Dental Planning MCP

Get workflow status

get_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Toofi agent workflow status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plan_id`	No	Plan id for workflow status.
`agent_id`	No	Calling agent identifier.
`plan_ref`	No	Plan reference for workflow status.
`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 workflow status.
`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.

First observedMay 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no additional context about what the status includes, how it is scoped, or any side effects. It provides no value 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short ('Get Toofi agent workflow status.'), so it is concise in terms of word count. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and many siblings, and the brevity reduces its usefulness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no required fields, many siblings), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the intended usage context, how the parameters relate to each other, or when to prefer this over similar status tools. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still leaves significant gaps.

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 descriptions cover all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level meaning, relying entirely on the schema for semantics.

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 'Get Toofi agent workflow status' clearly identifies the verb (Get) and resource (Toofi agent workflow status), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'get_dental_plan_operation_status', which could lead to confusion about which status-tool to use.

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 alternatives such as get_dental_plan_operation_status or list_plans. The description is a single sentence with no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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?