Toofi Dental Planning MCP

Preview plan draft schema

preview_plan_draft_schema

Read-onlyIdempotent

Preview the structured Toofi treatment-plan draft response schema for agent-native clinical workflows.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agent_id`	No	Calling agent identifier.
`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.
`procedures`	No
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which safely cover the behavioral profile. The description adds minimal extra context beyond restating the schema preview purpose, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enrich behavioral disclosure.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is free of redundant information and earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple read-only preview tool with no required parameters and an output schema provided, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly explains what is previewed, though slight elaboration on its relationship to plan generation could improve contextual grounding.

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 high (86%), and the input schema provides detailed descriptions for most parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema fields, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Preview the structured Toofi treatment-plan draft response schema' with a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('response schema'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_treatment_plan_draft which actually generate plans, whereas this tool exposes the schema.

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?

The phrase 'for agent-native clinical workflows' gives some context about intended usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as naming generate_treatment_plan_draft as the complementary tool. It lacks clear exclusions or alternative comparisons.

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?