Norwegian dental clinic directory (A2A marketplace). Search ~6,900 clinics by county, specialty, Helfo agreement and emergency availability. 5 tools: tannlege_search, tannlege_info, tannlege_stats, tannlege_akutt, tannlege_kjeder.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.4/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the dental clinic directory: emergency duty, full profile, chains, search, and statistics. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: 'tannlege_' followed by a Norwegian noun (akutt, info, kjeder, search, stats), making them predictable and easy to differentiate.
Five tools cover the essential operations for a dental clinic directory: search, details, emergency info, chain listing, and statistics. This is well-scoped and neither too few nor too many.
The toolset covers query, detail, emergency, chains, and stats comprehensively. The only minor gap is a dedicated 'list all clinics' tool, but the search tool with empty query likely serves that purpose.
tannlege_akuttFind emergency-duty dental clinics in NorwayAFind Norwegian dental clinics that offer emergency-duty (akuttvakt) — i.e. treatment outside normal working hours. Optionally filter by county (fylke). Also returns advice about the municipal dental emergency service (kommunal tannlegevakt). Example: 'finn akutt tannlege i Oslo'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fylke | No | Limit to clinics in this county. Examples: 'Oslo', 'Vestland' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it returns advice about municipal dental emergency service, which is extra behavioral context not in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus an example, front-loading the core purpose. Every word contributes; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple schema with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers tool behavior, input, and return value (clinics and advice).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description reinforces that the county filter is optional and provides an example, adding practical usage guidance beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool finds emergency-duty dental clinics in Norway, distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'akuttvakt' and mentions optional county filter. The example further clarifies its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through examples and context but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when to avoid. However, the purpose is clear enough for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tannlege_infoGet full details for a dental clinicAFetch complete profile for a single Norwegian dental clinic by organisation number (org_nr) or internal UUID. Returns name, address, phone, website, Helfo status, emergency duty, specialities, chain affiliation, specialists list, treatments, opening hours, payment options, and profile URL. Example: org_nr '912345678' or id 'uuid-here'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Clinic UUID (alternative to org_nr) | |
| org_nr | No | 9-digit Norwegian organisation number. Example: '912345678' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the description adds value by listing the returned fields (address, phone, etc.) and providing usage examples. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and parameters, then a list of return fields and an example. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description compensates by listing expected return fields. It covers the main purpose and parameters. Minor gap: does not explicitly state that at least one parameter is required, but it is implied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only giving examples of parameter values. The schema already describes the parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'complete profile for a single Norwegian dental clinic'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'tannlege_search' (list) and 'tannlege_akutt' (emergency) by focusing on a single clinic's full profile.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies when to use the tool: to fetch a complete profile by org_nr or UUID. While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the sibling tool names provide context for alternatives. Clear context but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tannlege_kjederList Norwegian dental chainsAList all Norwegian dental chains (kjeder) registered on finn-tannlege.com, including the number of clinic locations per chain. Examples of chains: 'Tannhelse Øst', 'Colosseum Tannlege', 'Nordic Dental'. Example question: 'hvilke tannlegekjeder finnes i Norge?'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds that the output includes the number of clinic locations per chain, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences plus examples, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value and there is no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%). The description does not need to add parameter info but provides output context (clinic locations). Baseline 4 for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly specifies the action ('List all Norwegian dental chains'), the resource ('Norwegian dental chains registered on finn-tannlege.com'), and the additional detail ('including the number of clinic locations per chain'). Examples and an example question further clarify the scope. Distinguishes from sibling tools like tannlege_search (for dentists) and tannlege_stats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides examples of chains and an example question ('hvilke tannlegekjeder finnes i Norge?'), which implicitly guide when to use this tool. However, no explicit comparison with sibling tools or conditions for use versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tannlege_searchSearch Norwegian dental clinicsASearch the finn-tannlege.com directory of Norwegian dental clinics. Supports free-text search, county (fylke) filter, specialty filter, Helfo direct-billing filter, and emergency-duty (akuttvakt) filter. Returns clinic name, address, contact info, Helfo status, and profile URL. Example: 'finn kjeveortoped i Bergen med Helfo-avtale'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| akutt | No | If true, only return clinics with emergency-duty (akuttvakt) | |
| fylke | No | Norwegian county (fylke). Examples: 'Oslo', 'Vestland', 'Rogaland' | |
| helfo | No | If true, only return clinics with Helfo direct-billing agreement | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, max 25) | |
| query | No | Free-text search (name or city). Examples: 'Oslo tannklinikk', 'kjeveortoped Bergen' | |
| spesialitet | No | Specialty slug. Examples: 'kjeveortopedi', 'endodonti', 'periodonti' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to re-state those. The description adds that it returns clinic name, address, contact info, Helfo status, and profile URL, which is helpful behavioral context. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences packed with all key information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second gives an illustrative example. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the input parameters and the output fields. It does not mention pagination or result format, but the 'limit' parameter and the listed fields provide sufficient guidance. A slightly more complete description might note that results are returned as a list of clinics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool's description summarizes the filter capabilities and provides an example query, which adds practical context beyond the schema. The example helps the agent understand how to combine parameters effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies the exact resource (Norwegian dental clinics from finn-tannlege.com) and the action (search). It also lists supported filters, which helps the agent understand its capabilities. The sibling tools (e.g., tannlege_akutt, tannlege_info) have different purposes, so this description effectively distinguishes the search function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states what filters are available and gives an example query, providing good context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or which sibling tool to use instead for different scenarios (e.g., getting details of a single clinic or finding emergency clinics).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tannlege_statsNorwegian dental market statisticsAFetch aggregated statistics for the Norwegian dental market from finn-tannlege.com. Returns total clinic count, per-county breakdown (per fylke), Helfo count, chain-member count, emergency-duty (akuttvakt) count, and specialist-clinic count. Example question: 'how many dental clinics are there in Norway?'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds value by enumerating the specific statistics returned (counts and breakdowns), which goes 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single sentence with a brief example, front-loading the core action and results. Every sentence is informative and there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and output. It could mention the response format, but the example and list of returned counts provide sufficient completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters are defined in the input schema, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as there is no requirement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool fetches aggregated statistics for the Norwegian dental market, listing specific counts (total, per-county, Helfo, chain, emergency, specialist) and providing an example question. The title reinforces the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies use for overall market stats and gives a concrete example question. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the context of sibling names (search, info, etc.) and the description itself sufficiently guide usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
