Public catalog, company & B2B distribution info for Mid-Continental Dental Supply (Renew line).
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool targets a distinct concern: company info, distribution model, product list, and product details. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_company_info, get_distribution_info, get_product, list_products), with get_ for single resources and list_ for collections.
Four tools concisely cover the server's purpose—company info, distribution, and product catalog. The count is well-scoped and each tool earns its place without feeling thin or overloaded.
The tool surface covers core information retrieval needs: company, distribution, product listing, and product details. Minor gaps exist such as search or category filtering, but agents can work around them.
Get Mid-Continental Dental Supply's public company information: name, tagline, description, founding year (1984), Winnipeg (Manitoba, Canada) address, geo, phone/toll-free numbers, email and social profiles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds transparency by listing specific return fields (founding year, address, etc.) and stating it returns public info. 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?
Single sentence is concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No unnecessary information.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists expected return fields. It is complete enough for a simple read tool, though it could clarify output format.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the optional locale parameter or its enum values. The description fails to add meaning 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 retrieves 'Mid-Continental Dental Supply's public company information' and lists specific fields (name, tagline, description, etc.), providing a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from siblings like get_distribution_info and list_products.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_distribution_info instead). It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get how to buy Renew products: the B2B distribution model (available exclusively through dental professionals, not in retail stores), the countries served, professional free-sample availability, and the where-to-buy / distributors / free-sample entry points with canonical URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the specific types of information returned (distribution model, countries, free samples, entry points). 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 a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and lists components, but it is somewhat long and could be split for clarity.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of return content, though it lacks detail on exact data structure or potential additional fields.
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?
The locale parameter is an enum with no description in the schema. The description mentions 'countries served' but does not clarify how locale affects output (e.g., language vs. country filtering), leaving ambiguity.
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 retrieves distribution information for Renew products, including specific aspects like B2B model, countries, free samples, and entry points. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_company_info and get_product.
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 for obtaining distribution details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_company_info or when it would be inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get public catalog details for a Renew product: description, use/appliance compatibility, public feature highlights, packaging/availability, regulatory status, manufacturer, country of origin and canonical URL. Returns no ingredient, formula or chemical data (none exists in the catalog).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| locale | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only. The description adds value by explicitly listing returned fields and stating what is excluded (no ingredient data), providing clear 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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second clarifies an important exclusion.
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?
For a simple read operation with enums and no output schema, the description adequately specifies return fields and exclusions. It is missing optionality info for locale but is otherwise complete.
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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in schema. The description does not explain the 'slug' or 'locale' parameters; the enum values are the only clues. This is insufficient for a 2-parameter tool.
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 retrieves public catalog details for a Renew product, listing specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings like list_products by focusing on a single product identified by slug.
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 use when needing product details but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use. No alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List Mid-Continental Dental Supply's Renew product line (public catalog). Returns slug, name, short description, regulatory status and the canonical mid-continental.com URL for each product.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'public catalog' adds light context. However, it omits behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, or any preconditions, leaving the agent to infer safety from 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?
Single sentence with clear verb ('List'), specific subject ('Renew product line'), and concise list of return fields. No unnecessary words, well front-loaded.
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?
Despite listing return fields, the description fails to explain the optional locale parameter, which is critical for correct invocation. No mention of possible limits or pagination, leaving gaps for a proper usage understanding.
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?
The lone parameter 'locale' is not described at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no guidance on what locales mean or how to use them, making the parameter opaque.
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 exactly what is listed ('Mid-Continental Dental Supply's Renew product line') and what fields are returned (slug, name, short description, regulatory status, canonical URL). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_product (single product) and get_company_info (company info).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for listing the public catalog, but does not mention when not to use it or provide context for choosing between sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_company_infoget_distribution_infoget_productlist_productsGet wholesale quotes and order industrial, MRO, and operational supplies from a US B2B distributor.
Public Root Data dental analytics directory for DSOs, dental practices, blog, and FAQ tools.
Read-only MCP: US dental intel, all-category Medicaid fee schedules, dentist lookup. Free tier.
Buy B2B supplies from a real US distributor: submit an RFQ, get a priced quote, order and pay.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
