healthgorilla_fhir_searchEscape hatch: run an arbitrary FHIR search. GET /{resource_type}?{query}. e.g. resource_type='Observation', query='patient=123&category=laboratory&_count=5'. Use when a dedicated tool does not cover your query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Raw FHIR query string without the leading '?', e.g. patient=123&_count=5. | |
| resource_type | Yes | FHIR resource type, e.g. Patient, Observation, Encounter. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, and the description reinforces that with the concrete GET URL shape and an escape-hatch framing. It does not discuss pagination behavior, result limits, error handling, or auth scoping beyond the '_count' hint in the example, so it adds only modest context over the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the 'Escape hatch' role, then the concrete URL form, then the routing rule. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly (URL form, example, when to reach for it). It omits any mention of pagination or response shape, which a generic search tool could reasonably note.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented individually. The description's composed example (resource_type='Observation', query='patient=123&category=laboratory&_count=5') shows how the two combine into a real query string, adding meaning beyond the isolated schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (search) and object (arbitrary FHIR resource via GET /{resource_type}?{query}) and positions it as an escape hatch distinct from the dedicated list/get siblings. An agent can immediately tell this apart from healthgorilla_list_observations or healthgorilla_find_patients.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says 'Use when a dedicated tool does not cover your query,' which gives clear context for selection over the many dedicated siblings. It never names which sibling to prefer in a given case and states no explicit exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.