HL7-Bridge MCP

validate_message

Check HL7 v2 messages for required segments/fields, validate FHIR Bundles against US Core profiles, and get structured issues to pinpoint errors.

Instructions

Valida un mensaje HL7 v2 (segmentos/campos requeridos) o un Bundle FHIR (perfil US Core mínimo) y devuelve issues estructurados.

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": {
      "payload": "<payload>",
      "kind": "<kind>"
    },
    "name": "validate_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`payload`	Yes
`profile`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that it returns structured issues, which indicates a non-throwing behavior and provides expectations. It also clarifies that FHIR validation uses a minimal US Core profile. However, with no annotations, it doesn't disclose error handling, permissions, or side effects. This is moderate but incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and output. No filler or redundant information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool validates two different data formats and has an optional 'profile' parameter, but the description does not explain the profile's purpose or how validation results are structured. It also lacks guidance on input format for payload. Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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

Parameters1/5

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 does not explain the 'payload' or 'profile' parameters at all. The only parameter hinted at is 'kind' by mentioning HL7 v2 and FHIR, but the enum already covers that. The description adds no semantic value for parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Valida') and clearly states the resources (HL7 v2 with segments/required fields, FHIR Bundle with minimum US Core profile) and the output (structured issues). This distinguishes it from siblings like map_v2_to_fhir, explain_error, and parse_hl7v2.

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?

The context is clear: this tool is for validation, not mapping, parsing, or error explanation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it doesn't achieve a 5. The user can infer when to use it based on the verb and resource types.

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

Deploy Server