faqs
Common questions and answers about the clinic and basal implants.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
dental
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Changed1 schema field changed
- changed
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{ + "properties": { + "result": { + "items": { + "additionalProperties": true, + "type": "object" + }, + "type": "array" + } + }, + "required": [ + "result" + ], + "type": "object", + "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true +}
- First observed
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns 'common questions and answers,' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, specify response format, or disclose any side effects.
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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately states its purpose. However, it could be more complete by indicating that it returns a list or that answers are pre-defined, but it is sufficient for a simple FAQ tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so no additional parameter information is needed. The baseline score is 4 per guidelines since schema coverage is 100% and there are no parameters to describe.
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 tool provides 'common questions and answers about the clinic and basal implants,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'about_dentist' and 'clinic_info' by focusing on FAQs.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for when a user should call 'faqs' instead of 'clinic_info' or 'oral_health_articles'. It only implies usage for FAQ queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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.