HL7-Bridge MCP

map_v2_to_fhir

Maps an HL7 v2 message to a FHIR R4 Bundle using a declarative map, then validates against US Core minimum and explains each issue.

Instructions

Mapea un mensaje HL7 v2 a un Bundle FHIR R4 con un mapa declarativo y valida el resultado contra US Core mínimo, explicando cada issue.

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": {
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "map_v2_to_fhir"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mapId`	No
`message`	Yes
`fhirVersion`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond simple mapping by explaining that it validates against US Core and explains each issue, which is useful context. However, it does not discuss error handling, limitations, or side effects.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. Every phrase adds meaningful information about mapping, validation, and issue explanation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essential mapping and validation behavior and provides a high-level output description, but it omits details on mapId and the fhirVersion options. Given no output schema or annotations, it is reasonably complete but has notable gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies 'message' as an HL7 v2 message and mentions a declarative map, but it fails to explain mapId or fhirVersion. Moreover, it states 'FHIR R4' while the schema allows R6, potentially misleading the agent about the fhirVersion parameter.

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 maps an HL7 v2 message to an FHIR R4 Bundle using a declarative map and validates the result. It distinguishes this from siblings like validate_message or parse_hl7v2 by specifying the conversion and validation action.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for mapping HL7 v2 to FHIR and validating, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like validate_message or explain_error. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server