FinchNode Synthetic Health Records

Simulate FinchNode Connect

simulate_demo_connect

Read-only

Use this to prototype the FinchNode connection journey. Returns a non-persistent synthetic session: complete for a record or behavior scenario, or the connect-cancelled or connect-failed outcome with no patient.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scenario`	No	Optional scenario id from list_demo_scenarios. Omitted means baseline-adult; connect-cancelled and connect-failed end without a patient.
`categories`	No	Requested fictional record categories.
`external_user_id`	No	Optional non-sensitive prototype identifier. Never send a real patient identifier.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session`	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; connect-cancelled and connect-failed end without a patient.",
+  "enum": [
+    "baseline-adult",
+    "polypharmacy-senior",
+    "pediatric-asthma",
+    "multi-source-overlap",
+    "sparse-record",
+    "messy-coding",
+    "rate-limited",
+    "consent-revoked",
+    "consent-partial",
+    "source-unavailable",
+    "connect-cancelled",
+    "connect-failed"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds that it returns a 'non-persistent synthetic session' and clarifies that some scenarios yield no patient, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict any annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is stated first, followed by a concise explanation of possible outcomes. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's function and typical outcomes. It could mention how it relates to the sibling get_demo_* tools, but for a simulation tool, the description is sufficient.

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 all parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full load.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('prototype') and resource ('FinchNode connection journey'). It distinguishes itself from the get_demo_* siblings by focusing on the connection flow rather than individual record fetching, and mentions the outcome types (complete session or cancelled/failed).

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to prototype the FinchNode connection journey,' giving clear context for when to call it. However, it doesn't mention alternatives like get_demo_* tools for retrieving specific records, nor does it state exclusions. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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?