Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Open Dental MCP

Open Dental MCP

by MaxilloCA
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_patient

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single patient record using an exact internal PatNum. Verify the patient's identity before relying on the returned data.

Instructions

Fetch one patient by the exact internal PatNum. Verify identity before use.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "patnum": "<patnum>"
    },
    "name": "get_patient"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patnumYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so safety semantics are covered. The description adds the exactness requirement and an identity-verification caution, which is useful beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about what happens when the PatNum does not exist or who may read this record.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the lookup constraint and the key caution both front-loaded.

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?

Rich annotations plus an existing output schema mean the description only needs to cover selection and risk, which it largely does. The remaining gap is error/not-found behavior and any access restrictions on patient data.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does meaningfully: 'exact internal PatNum' tells the agent this is an internal primary key requiring an exact match, not a name or chart number. It stops short of format examples or failure behavior.

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 concrete verb ('Fetch'), a single resource ('one patient'), and the key lookup constraint ('exact internal PatNum'). That implicitly separates it from the search-style sibling find_patients, though the description never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: use it when you already hold the internal PatNum. The description gives no routing guidance such as 'to search by name or birthdate, use find_patients', and 'Verify identity before use' is a caution rather than a when-to-use rule.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools