Skip to main content
Glama

ImOnFHIR

Compare two payloads

compare_payloads
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two synthetic FHIR payloads (a resource or a Bundle each, 1 MB at most per side) and report where they differ: which rows are missing or extra, which field paths changed, and counts. It returns no field values; it lists up to 200 rows and 300 field paths (the paths come from the key names in the payloads) and counts the rest. Synthetic data only. The payloads are sent to imonfhir.com for the call and the site does not store them; the browser Compare tool at /lab/compare keeps them on your machine.

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": {
      "a": "<a>",
      "b": "<b>"
    },
    "name": "compare_payloads"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aYesA FHIR resource or Bundle (a JSON object, or a string holding one). Synthetic only.
bYesThe payload to compare it with, in the same form.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsYes
statsYes
noticeYes
identicalYes
truncatedYes
rows_listedYes
paths_listedYes
rows_omittedYes
paths_omittedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses several non-obvious traits: payloads are transmitted to imonfhir.com, the site does not retain them, no field values are returned, and results are truncated at 200 rows and 300 field paths with the remainder counted. Those disclosure points are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose and output shape are front-loaded, and each sentence carries concrete content (output scope, truncation limits, data handling). The closing pointer to the browser Compare tool is useful but slightly ancillary, keeping it just short of maximal tightness.

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 two-parameter comparison tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is compared, what is reported, truncation caps, input size limits, data-handling location, and the synthetic-only restriction. Nothing material is left for the agent to infer.

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% and both parameters are already documented as FHIR resource or Bundle in object-or-string form, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds real value on top by stating the 1 MB per-side size limit and the synthetic-only constraint on the inputs, which the schema does not express as a limit.

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 states a specific verb and resource — comparing two synthetic FHIR payloads (resource or Bundle) — and enumerates the output dimensions: missing/extra rows, changed field paths, and counts. That is enough for an agent to separate it from siblings like compare_igs (IG comparison) or validate_bundle (validation) without opening a schema.

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?

Usage context is clear (synthetic payloads only, 1 MB per side) and it names an alternative path — the browser Compare tool at /lab/compare — for callers who need payloads to stay local. What it does not do is explicitly state when to prefer validate_bundle or compare_igs over this tool, so the sibling routing is left implicit.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources