FinchNode Synthetic Health Records

Get synthetic health record

get_demo_record

Read-onlyIdempotent

Legacy categorized FHIR response. Kept compatible for existing prototypes. For normalized platform-shaped data, use get_demo_health_record. Fictional patients only; pick one with scenario.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scenario`	No	Optional scenario id from list_demo_scenarios. Omitted means baseline-adult. Behavior scenarios (rate-limited, consent-revoked, consent-partial, source-unavailable) answer with the same scripted error or partial result as the REST demo.
`categories`	No	Optional subset of normalized record categories.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`record`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / scenario

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional scenario id from list_demo_scenarios. Omitted means baseline-adult. Behavior scenarios (rate-limited, consent-revoked, consent-partial, source-unavailable) answer with the same scripted error or partial result as the REST demo.",
+  "enum": [
+    "baseline-adult",
+    "polypharmacy-senior",
+    "pediatric-asthma",
+    "multi-source-overlap",
+    "sparse-record",
+    "messy-coding",
+    "rate-limited",
+    "consent-revoked",
+    "consent-partial",
+    "source-unavailable"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: the legacy nature, compatibility purpose, and the fact that only fictional patients are available. It also hints at scenario selection, though the schema handles the scripted behavior scenarios. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences that immediately state the key differentiator (legacy vs normalized) and provide an alternative. Front-loaded and efficient with zero fluff.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains what the tool returns (categorized FHIR), why it exists (prototype compatibility), and points to the alternative. The scenario parameter's behavior is documented in the schema. An agent has everything needed to decide and 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% – both parameters have detailed descriptions including enums, defaults, and behavior notes. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's parameter documentation, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as returning a 'Legacy categorized FHIR response' and explicitly differentiates it from get_demo_health_record, which provides normalized data. The verb 'get' and resource 'demo record' are specific, and the mention of compatibility for prototypes adds context that distinguishes it from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool: 'For normalized platform-shaped data, use get_demo_health_record.' It also implies usage for existing prototypes. This is clear routing to the correct sibling.

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

All FinchNode Synthetic Health Records tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?