Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

simplepractice-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

simplepractice_request_sign_in_link

Destructive

Sends a passwordless SimplePractice Client Portal sign-in link to an email address after confirmation, so clients can request portal access without a password.

Instructions

Ask SimplePractice to email a sign-in link to a Client Portal address. The portal has no password — this is how you sign in. Sends a real email and is rate-limited per email address AND per IP, so it asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one (unless MCP_CONFIRM_ELICITATION=off); otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). A success does not prove the address has an account: the API answers identically for unknown addresses by design.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesThe email address the Client Portal is registered to.
practiceNoThe practice whose portal to sign in to — the slug ("achievebalancetherapy"), the host, or the portal URL. Only needed when this server does not know the practice yet; signing in with an emailed link teaches it, and it then remembers.
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / email / pattern
      Previous value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"
  4. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / practice
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The practice whose portal to sign in to — the slug (\"achievebalancetherapy\"), the host, or the portal URL. Only needed when this server does not know the practice yet; signing in with an emailed link teaches it, and it then remembers.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  5. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that a real email is sent, that it is rate-limited per email address AND per IP, that a confirmation prompt/two-step confirmToken flow gates execution, and the non-obvious fact that success does not prove an account exists (enumeration resistance). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent must know before invoking.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each following sentence carries distinct operational information (rate limits, confirmation modes, enumeration caveat). Some sentences are dense, but nothing is padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutating, rate-limited, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, the confirmation mechanics, and the misleading-success caveat. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents email, practice, and confirmToken in detail. The description reinforces the confirmToken workflow but adds little syntax or semantics not already present in the schema; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('email a sign-in link') and resource ('Client Portal address') with a clear scope. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like verify_sign_in_token or verify_sign_in_pin because it is the entry point that sends the link rather than validating a credential.

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?

Explains the context ('the portal has no password — this is how you sign in') and details the two confirmation paths thoroughly, including the env-var controls. It does not, however, explicitly name when a sibling such as verify_sign_in_token would be the better next call, leaving that to inference.

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