Tabruns Dental

Dental cost estimate (PPO)

estimate_dental_cost

Read-only

Estimates what a PPO dental plan should pay and what the patient owes for planned treatment, applying the deductible left, coverage percentage per category (preventive, basic, major), any blocked lines and the yearly maximum left, the way insurers do. Send plan numbers and fees only: there is no field for, and you must not send, a patient's name, birth date, member ID or any date. Unknown fields are refused.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "services": "<services>"
    },
    "name": "estimate_dental_cost"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`services`	Yes	The planned treatment, one item per service.
`in_network`	No	True when the office is in the plan's network (default true). In network the allowed fee is the PPO fee; out of network the patient also owes the gap to the office's price.
`annual_max_left`	No	Yearly maximum still available, in US dollars; null or leave out when the plan has none.
`deductible_left`	No	Deductible still owed this plan year (default 0), in US dollars.
`coverage_percent`	No	Percent the plan pays per category. Default preventive 100, basic 80, major 50.
`deductible_waived_for`	No	Categories the deductible does not apply to. Default ["preventive"].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds real behavioral context: the calculation mimics insurer adjudication order (deductible, then category percentage, then annual maximum), and it discloses a hard input policy that PHI fields are absent and unknown fields are rejected. It stops short of describing the response shape or how per-line results are reported.

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 core computation is front-loaded in the first sentence and the privacy constraint follows as a distinct, short sentence. The opening sentence is long and clause-heavy but every clause carries information. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter nested tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs and the two headline outputs (plan pays, patient owes) but not the returned structure, such as whether results are per service line or aggregated. It is usable but an agent would still have to discover the response shape by calling it.

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 schema already documents every parameter and its defaults, making 3 the baseline. The description does add interaction semantics the schema cannot express, namely that the deductible, coverage percentages, blocked lines, and annual maximum are applied together in sequence. That is a modest gain over field-level descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it estimates PPO plan payment and patient responsibility for planned treatment. The scope (deductible remaining, category coverage, blocked lines, annual maximum) is concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the siblings get_pricing or list_dental_services, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'planned treatment' and the instruction to send plan numbers and fees only, which rules out submitting real patient records. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_pricing, nor prerequisites such as needing the plan's coverage terms first. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tabruns Dental tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?