simplepractice-mcp

simplepractice_request_sign_in_link

Destructive

Email a passwordless sign-in link to a SimplePractice Client Portal address so the client can access their portal without a password. Requires confirmation before sending.

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; 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

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	The email address the Client Portal is registered to.
`practice`	No	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.
`confirmToken`	No	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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.1Sep 25, 2026

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"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0Sep 19, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.2Sep 10, 2026

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,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"

Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0Sep 2, 2026

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"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Aug 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation (which correctly indicates side effects), the description discloses critical behaviors: it sends a real email, is rate-limited per email and IP, requires user confirmation (either via elicitation or a two-step token fallback), and notes that success does not prove the address has an account. This is exemplary transparency for a side-effectful tool.

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?

The description is moderately long but every sentence carries information. It front-loads the primary purpose and then layers details on rate limiting, confirmation, and response semantics. It references MCP_CONFIRM_MODE which is an external concept; this adds a dependency but not unnecessary verbosity. Could be trimmed slightly but remains efficient.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description explains the unusual response flow (preview + confirmToken in fallback), the success semantics (doesn't prove account existence), and the optional 'practice' parameter. It covers rate limits, confirmation requirements, and the two-step fallback, leaving nothing essential unexplained for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: for 'practice' it explains when it's needed (when the server doesn't know the practice yet), and for 'confirmToken' it details the exact usage flow (only for fallback, never invented, never reused). This enriches understanding but is partially redundant with schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Ask SimplePractice to email a sign-in link to a Client Portal address.' It specifies the resource (Client Portal) and the purpose (sign-in since there's no password). It also differentiates from sibling tools like verify_sign_in_pin and verify_sign_in_token, which are about verifying after the link, making this the initial request tool.

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 description explains when to use this tool (the portal has no password, so this is the sign-in method) and gives context about the confirmation flow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., 'use verify_sign_in_token after the email is received'). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

simplepractice_request_sign_in_link

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools