Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

simplepractice-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

simplepractice_list_appointments

Read-only

List Client Portal appointments by status: scheduled for confirmed/upcoming visits or requested for pending confirmation. Supports pagination and compact or full result views.

Instructions

Appointments from the Client Portal. status "scheduled" returns confirmed/upcoming ones; "requested" returns those still awaiting the practice's confirmation. Pages by number.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
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.
statusNoWhich side of the pending-confirmation filter to read.scheduled
pageSizeNo

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. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.4.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / compact
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": true,
-  "description": "Return a slim projection. Set false for the full records.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • 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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 behavior beyond that: pagination exists ('Pages by number') and the two status values map to distinct result sets. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or how many pages/items to expect.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then status semantics, then pagination. Nothing is redundant, though the pagination note is thin enough that it could have carried the default and max page size at little cost.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only paginated list with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and the status filter, and annotations carry the safety profile. It omits practical pagination detail (default page size, 50-item cap, how to detect more pages), which matters for a tool that explicitly pages by number.

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 50%: view and status are documented in the schema, page and pageSize are not. The description elaborates the semantics of status beyond the schema's terse 'Which side of the pending-confirmation filter to read' and hints that page is a page number, partially compensating for the undocumented pagination parameters, but pageSize and its 50-item cap are left unexplained.

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 clear verb (list) and resource (appointments) with scope qualifier (Client Portal), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It is the only appointment-listing tool among the siblings, but the description never explicitly differentiates itself from adjacent list tools like simplepractice_list_documents or simplepractice_list_announcements.

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 context is implied rather than stated: it explains what the status values mean but never says when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer it is the read path for appointments, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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