Fetch the signed-in client's account details, including practice info and every client the portal login can access; returns a list covering dependent or shared client records.
The practice, the signed-in client, and every client this login can see. One portal login is a "client access" and may cover more than one client — a parent seeing two children, say — so clients is always a list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful shape information beyond that: clients is always a list, and one login (a 'client access') may span multiple clients, which prevents an agent from assuming a single-client return.
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 that are front-loaded with the returned content, followed by the multi-client clarification. The parenthetical 'a parent seeing two children' earns its place as a concrete illustration, though it is slightly verbose for the amount of information conveyed.
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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return, and it names the three top-level components (practice, signed-in client, clients list). It stops short of describing auth requirements or error conditions, but for a zero-parameter read tool it is largely 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description references the 'clients' field of the response, which adds a little meaning without implying any input the agent might try to supply.
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 makes clear this returns the account context: the practice, the signed-in client, and every visible client. The verb is only implied (the name get_account carries the action), and no sibling is named or contrasted, but an agent can immediately tell this apart from list_appointments or list_documents.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent infers this is the identity/context call to make before filtering other resources by client. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no alternative named among the many list_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.