intakeq-mcp

get_client

Get a client's complete profile by ID, including billing type and linked relationships, for immediate access to IntakeQ practice records.

Instructions

Get a single client by ID (includes full profile).

Response field reference: BillingType: 0=Unknown, 1=SelfPay, 2=Insurance LinkedClientRelationshipType: 0=None, 1=Parent, 2=Child, 3=Spouse, 4=Sibling, 5=Other, 6=Partner

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "client_id": "<client_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`client_id`	Yes	The IntakeQ client ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by mapping BillingType and LinkedClientRelationshipType enum values in the response. It does not cover authentication, errors, or side effects, but for a simple read-only get operation this is reasonably transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The response field reference is well-structured and directly useful, with no redundant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It provides the necessary purpose and even includes a response field reference. It would benefit from explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but it is not deficient.

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% for the single client_id parameter. The description merely repeats 'by ID' without adding further semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool gets a single client by ID and includes the full profile. This distinguishes it from list_clients and other get_* tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving an individual client's full profile but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus list_clients or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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