Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Real Dental Costs

by io.github.tresor4k
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Low-cost dental care options in a US state

low_cost_dental_options
Read-only

Use this when the user in a US state looks for low-cost or free dental care, or asks where to get dental work on a tight budget. Returns a list for that state where each route names its source and check date: dental schools with patient clinics (name, city, clinic URL, verified date), the count of HRSA dental shortage-area (HPSA) designations with the date of the HRSA file and the health-center finder link, Mission of Mercy events and charity programs (Dental Lifeline Network and named clinics), with an optional county for the dental-desert atlas row. Dental-school clinic fees are not published by Real Dental Costs. Phrasings: "where can I get dental work on a tight budget in Columbus", "dental school clinics that see patients in Ohio", "¿dónde hay dentistas gratis en Illinois?", "clínicas dentales de bajo costo en Franklin County". Also use it when the user asks whether their county is a dental shortage area or where the community health centers are. Every figure carries its source URL and period; a missing cell returns status no_source_at_this_level with the next level up. Medicaid amounts are what Medicaid paid per claim line (T-MSIS), not what a patient is charged. No personal data (age, ZIP, name, insurer) is requested or stored. Do not use for: diagnosis, treatment choice, a named insurer's plan price, dentist recommendations, countries other than the US and Canada. Market research, not a quote, not medical, coding or insurance advice.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoResponse language for labels/notes: "en" (default) or "es".en
stateYesTwo-letter US state code (or DC). One of: AL, AR, MS, KY, WV, IA, KS, OK, IN, SD, LA, NE, SC, GA, MO, TN, ND, OH, NC, MI, NM, WI, UT, ID, MN, TX, WY, AZ, FL, MT, CO, VA, IL, ME, PA, CT, OR, VT, DE, NV, RI, MD, WA, NH, NJ, MA, DC, AK, HI, NY, CA.
countyNoCounty name, e.g. "Franklin".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool readOnly, non-destructive, and not open-world, while the description adds rich behavioral context: source URLs and periods on figures, the no_source_at_this_level missing-data status, T-MSIS Medicaid payment interpretation, no personal data storage, and market-research/non-advice caveats. No annotation contradiction is present.

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 front-loads the use case and output shape, and its long return-detail list is justified because there is no output schema. A few repeated disclaimers and four example phrasings make it longer than strictly necessary, so it is efficient but not maximally concise.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description explains returned fields, source and check dates, missing-data behavior, privacy constraints, and exclusion boundaries. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters, leaving no material gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so state, lang, and county are already well documented in structured fields. The description adds that county is optional for the dental-desert atlas row and that state scopes the returned list, but it does not explain lang or add enum-level guidance, making this baseline adequate rather than rich.

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: returns low-cost or free dental care options for a US state, enumerating dental-school clinics, HPSA counts, charity programs, and related routes. It differentiates from adjacent data tools through exclusions such as insurer plan prices, dentist recommendations, diagnosis, and treatment choice, but does not name sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance, bilingual example phrasings, and a do-not-use list covering diagnosis, insurer prices, dentist recommendations, and non-US/Canada queries. It lacks named sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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