Lists payment methods saved in the SimplePractice Client Portal, showing card brand, last four digits, and expiry date without exposing 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.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: it specifies that full card numbers are NOT returned, which is a critical privacy constraint. It also enumerates the exact fields returned (brand, last four digits, expiry). This is strong supplementary disclosure for a simple read operation.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately states the key constraint (no full card numbers). Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what data to expect and what not to expect. It does not discuss response format or pagination, but these are minor gaps for such a simple tool, and the annotation covers the safety profile.
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, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuous). The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate here.
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 (payment methods saved to the Client Portal) and the specific data returned (brand, last four digits, expiry). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which deal with sessions, appointments, billing, documents, etc. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any alternative tools or scenarios where it should or should not be used. While the tool is obviously for listing saved payment methods, the absence of explicit usage context leaves the agent to infer intent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.