list_treatments
List the dental treatments offered, with a short summary and page URL for each.
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
A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list with a short summary and page URL for each treatment. This is sufficient behavioral context for a read-only listing. No mention of ordering or limitations, but acceptable given simplicity.
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?
One sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is necessary. No redundancy.
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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention that it returns all treatments (a list) but the phrase 'List the dental treatments offered' implies that. Slight lack of clarification on ordering or filtering, but not essential.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description inherently adds no parameter info, but the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. No additional semantics are needed.
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 lists dental treatments with a short summary and page URL. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('dental treatments'), and the output details are mentioned. This distinguishes it from 'get_treatment' which likely returns details of a single treatment.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is implied for browsing all treatments, the description does not mention when to use 'get_treatment' for specific details. The context of having zero parameters makes it straightforward, but a brief note on preferring this for overviews would improve it.
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.