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.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description confirms the read-only GET shape and adds genuinely useful behavior context: the query is passed through raw and untyped, so the agent must supply valid FHIR syntax itself. It omits error behavior for unsupported resource types and result pagination/size limits.
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 call shape, then the routing rule. Zero filler; every sentence earns its place.
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 2-parameter, annotation-light, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers purpose, call format, and routing to dedicated tools. It would be fully complete with a note on unsupported resource types or pagination limits, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds a concrete composed example ('Observation' with 'patient=123&category=laboratory&_count=5') showing how resource_type and a multi-clause query combine in practice, which goes slightly beyond the schema's simpler example.
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?
States a specific verb and scope: 'run an arbitrary FHIR search' against 'GET /{resource_type}?{query}'. The 'Escape hatch' framing immediately distinguishes it from the dedicated list_* and get_* siblings that cover specific resources.
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?
Explicitly says to use it 'when a dedicated tool does not cover your query', which names the alternative class of tools and the selecting condition. It stops short of enumerating edge cases (e.g. what to do when a dedicated tool exists but lacks a filter) or when-not-to-use beyond that single rule.
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.