Retrieve the practice profile, signed-in client, and every client linked to the portal login. Get a complete account overview in one request.
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that clients is always a list because one portal login may cover multiple clients (e.g., a parent with two children). This clarifies an expected output shape without contradicting the annotation.
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 filler. The first sentence immediately states what is returned, and the second explains the key nuance about the clients list. The information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the resource scope and the critical behavioral quirk (clients always being a list). An agent can correctly anticipate the tool's result shape and behavior without further documentation.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead.
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 resource being retrieved: the practice, the signed-in client, and all visible clients. It uses specific nouns and implies a retrieval action, making the tool's purpose obvious without referencing the tool name. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on specific entities like appointments or 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?
The description explains what the tool returns but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling list tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions. The context about multi-client access is helpful, but the tool's usage window is left to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.