Retrieve saved client payment methods with brand, last four digits, and expiry from SimplePractice Client Portal. Access billing details securely without full card numbers.
Payment methods saved to the Client Portal — brand, last four digits, and expiry. No full card numbers.
| 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, so the description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (brand, last four, expiry) and explicitly noting that full card numbers are not included. This security context goes beyond the annotation. No other behavioral traits are disclosed, but for a simple list operation this is sufficient.
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 zero waste. The core purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and the exclusion of full card numbers is stated clearly. Efficient and well-structured.
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 parameterless, read-only list operation, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what is returned (brand, last four, expiry) and what is not (full numbers). Since no output schema exists, this explicit enumeration of returned fields is essential. Complete for the tool's simplicity.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description need not add parameter semantics. The schema coverage is 100% by virtue of having no properties. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds nothing beyond that, which is appropriate.
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 identifies the operation: listing payment methods saved to the Client Portal. It specifies the returned fields (brand, last four digits, expiry) and explicitly excludes full card numbers. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools by subject matter and scope.
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 implies when to use the tool: when a list of stored payment methods is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the subject is distinct enough that no confusion with siblings arises. Context is clear, though it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.