Skip to main content
Glama

simplepractice_get_billing_overview

Read-only

Check balance due and per-category billing counts to quickly determine if any payments are outstanding without contacting billing.

Instructions

Balance due and per-category counts for the Client Portal account. Cheaper than paging the billing collections just to find out whether anything is there.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands. compact returns the slim projection where one exists and strips image URLs elsewhere; "full" returns SimplePractice's whole records.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / view
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Response shape: \"compact\" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; \"full\" returns every field this server understands. compact returns the slim projection where one exists and strips image URLs elsewhere; \"full\" returns SimplePractice's whole records.",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "compact",
      +    "full"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds a cost/efficiency signal ('Cheaper than paging...') but does not elaborate on response behavior, rate limits, or other side-effect-relevant details. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful efficiency note. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple, read-only tool with one optional, well-documented parameter, the description covers the high-level return content and the practical reason to use it. It could be more specific about what 'per-category' means or the response shape, but the annotation and schema already reduce the burden.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'view' parameter is fully documented with enum meanings. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns balance due and per-category counts for the Client Portal account, and it hints at a distinction from detailed billing collection paging. It lacks an explicit action verb and does not name a sibling tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'Cheaper than paging the billing collections just to find out whether anything is there' gives clear contextual guidance for when to use this overview tool rather than pulling detailed billing items. It does not name the sibling explicitly or provide exclusions, but the intended use case is reasonably clear.

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