Skip to main content
Glama

Real Dental Costs

by io.github.tresor4k
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Dental cost in 2 to 5 US states side by side

compare_states
Read-only

Use this when the user names two to five US states and asks what one of the 12 procedures (exam and cleaning, filling, deep cleaning, extraction, root canal, crown, implant, All-on-4, dentures, braces, veneer, whitening) costs in each, or in which of them it costs less, for instance before a move or before travelling for care. Returns, for each state, the cash band (low / average / high) in US dollars with its basis badge (observed or estimated), its rank among the 51 state averages and its gap in percent to the national mean, plus the national band. Every row comes from the same series with its source and period, so the states are lined up on one basis; cosmetic procedures carry no state variation. For crown, veneer, braces and dentures each state row returns no_source_at_this_level (ASQ360/CareCredit per-state figures, not licensed for redistribution) and only the national band is given. Phrasings: "line up implant costs in Texas, Florida and Arizona", "fillings in Ohio and Michigan side by side", "¿dónde sale más barato un implante, en Texas o en California?", "compara el costo de una endodoncia en Nueva York y Nueva Jersey". Do not use for: diagnosis, treatment choice, a named insurer's plan price, dentist recommendations, countries other than the US and Canada. Market research and public program data with a source URL and period on every figure; not a quote, not medical advice.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoResponse language for labels/notes: "en" (default) or "es".en
statesYes2 to 5 two-letter state codes (DC allowed).
procedureYesProcedure id. One of: exam (Exam, cleaning & X-rays), filling (Composite filling (1 tooth)), deepclean (Deep cleaning (SRP, per quadrant)), extraction (Tooth extraction), rootcanal (Root canal), allon4 (All-on-4 (per arch)), whitening (Professional teeth whitening), crown (Dental crown), veneer (Porcelain veneer (per tooth)), braces (Braces (traditional, full case)), implant (Single dental implant (complete)), dentures (Full set of dentures (both arches)).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: return structure, USD cash bands, basis badges, state rank, gap to national mean, sourcing and period consistency. It also discloses important procedure-specific caveats, including cosmetic procedures having no state variation and several procedures returning no_source_at_this_level.

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 description is front-loaded with the use case and then adds return details, caveats, examples, and exclusions. It is dense and somewhat long, but nearly every sentence carries routing or behavioral information; a small amount of example/query text could be trimmed without losing essentials.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description needs to explain return values, and it does: cash band, basis badge, rank, gap to national mean, national band, source and period. It also covers limitations and exclusions needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the enum values and state codes are already fully documented. The description still adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that procedures vary by state availability and by calling out which procedures lack per-state licensed figures.

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 states a specific comparison verb and resource: side-by-side dental costs for 2 to 5 US states across 12 named procedures. It clearly scopes the tool to multi-state comparison rather than single-state or national tools, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says when to use the tool, including example phrasings in English and Spanish, and gives clear exclusions: no diagnosis, treatment choice, insurer-specific pricing, dentist recommendations, or non-US/Canada countries. This leaves little ambiguity about routing.

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

All Real Dental Costs toolsInspect
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