Toofi Dental Planning MCP

Start panoramic X-ray markup

start_pano_markup

Idempotent

Start Toofi panoramic X-ray markup workflow under agent-native clinical planning rails.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plan_id`	No	Plan id for panoramic X-ray markup.
`agent_id`	No	Calling agent identifier.
`plan_ref`	No	Plan reference for panoramic X-ray markup.
`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 panoramic X-ray markup.
`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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations provide some safety info (idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds little beyond the verb 'Start'. It does not explain what the workflow entails, whether it creates a long-running operation, or what side effects are expected. No contradiction with annotations, but the behavioral disclosure is shallow.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with the action front-loaded. However, the trailing phrase 'under agent-native clinical planning rails' is vague and detracts from clarity, though it does not bloat the description significantly.

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 9-parameter complexity and the domain (dental clinical workflows), this description is too sparse. It does not explain how the markup workflow connects to existing plans, whether a plan must already exist, or what 'clinical planning rails' mean. The output schema may cover return values, but the description alone leaves major context 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?

All 9 parameters are fully described in the input schema with clear definitions, so the description carries no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully compensates for any missing parameter explanation.

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 ('Start') and the resource ('Toofi panoramic X-ray markup workflow'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also stands apart from all sibling tools, which are predominantly get/list/generate actions, and the title reinforces the intent.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or situations where this tool should be avoided. The phrase 'under agent-native clinical planning rails' is jargon and offers no usable direction.

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?