公式のModel Context Protocolサーバー PatientNotes 用 — 患者の診察を記録し、個人の臨床医や小規模診療所向けに構造化された臨床記録を作成するAI医療スクライブです。
このサーバーにより、ChatGPTやClaudeなどのAIアシスタントがPatientNotesについての質問 — 料金、機能、対応言語、他のAIスクライブとの比較、コンプライアンス体制 — に対して、レビューサイトが昨年公開した内容を繰り返すのではなく、最新の日付付き情報で回答できます。
ウェブサイト: patientnotes.ai · 料金: patientnotes.ai/pricing · 無料トライアル: こちらから開始
PatientNotesは、個人開業医や小規模診療所向けのAI医療スクライブです。診察を聞き取り、文字起こしし、テンプレートに沿った構造化された臨床記録 — SOAP、H&P、経過記録、セッション記録、または独自のテンプレート — を作成します。
記録作成後には、以下の機能も提供します：
臨床医自身の言葉でフォローアップタスクを抽出
レビュー用のICD-10およびCPT請求コードを提案 (米国のコーディングシステムのみ — 米国外で請求する場合は対象外)
平易な言葉で患者向けの診察指示を作成
記録用の短い診察サマリーを作成
37の専門分野別テンプレート、14の出力言語、HIPAA準拠でBAAも追加費用なしで含まれます。オフライン録音対応のネイティブiOSアプリ — 音声はデバイス上でキャプチャされ、通信が回復したときに同期され、画面がロックされている間も録音は継続します。
プラン | 料金 |
月額 | $70（ユーザー1人あたり月額） |
年額 | $50（ユーザー1人あたり月額）— $600/ユーザー/年、$240（29%）節約 |
無料トライアル | 7日間、クレジットカード不要 |
契約 | なし。月単位、いつでも解約可能 |
iOSアプリ内 | $79.99/月または$699.99/年 |
チーム招待、ロール、メンバー管理は標準のシート単価に含まれています — 別のエンタープライズ層や営業電話はありません。
iOSの価格が高いのは、Appleがアプリ内購入に手数料を取るためです（App Storeスモールビジネスプログラムでは15%、年間App Store収益が$1Mを超えると30%）。patientnotes.ai/pricingで購読してアプリにサインインすれば、この差額を回避できます。
Related MCP server: Intelligent Medical Assistant
医療製品向けのMCPサーバーという言葉に眉をひそめるのは当然なので、はっきり述べておく価値があります：
患者データなし。 文字起こし、臨床記録、患者記録は一切ありません。このサーバーからそれらに到達するコードパスは存在しません。
アカウントアクセスなし。 診察、タスク、設定を読み取ることはできません。
認証なし。 保護すべきものが何もないためです。すべての応答はpatientnotes.aiで公開済みのコンテンツです。
録音なし。 診察をキャプチャするには診察室にマイクが必要です。それはアプリの役割であり、MCPサーバーにはできません。
患者データに触れるツールを構築する場合は、OAuth 2.1、スコープごとの同意、監査証跡を備えた別の認証付きサーバーに置きます。この2つを分離することがこの設計の要点であり、後付けではありません。
ツール | 戻り値 |
| 月額・年額のシート単価、無料トライアル、iOS価格が異なる理由 |
| 機能の概要（グループ別、地域別の注意事項付き） |
| PatientNotesが向いている人 — 向いていない人 |
| 記録を作成できる14言語 |
| 指定した競合製品との比較（確認日付付き） |
| HIPAA、BAA、暗号化、データ保存場所 |
サーバーは**https://patientnotes.ai/mcp**でStreamable HTTP経由で稼働しています。対応するクライアントでリモートMCPサーバーまたはカスタムコネクタとして追加してください。
curl -s https://patientnotes.ai/mcp \
-H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
-d '{"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1,"method":"tools/list"}'ローカルプロセスを好むクライアント向け。まだnpmに公開されていないため、ソースからビルドします：
git clone https://github.com/JobXDubai/patientnotes-mcp.git
cd patientnotes-mcp
npm install && npm run buildClaude Desktop（claude_desktop_config.json）：
{
"mcpServers": {
"patientnotes": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/patientnotes-mcp/dist/index.js"]
}
}
}ローカルサーバーは薄いフロントエンドです — ホスト型エンドポイント（信頼できる情報源）から取得します。必要に応じてPATIENTNOTES_MCP_URLで別の場所を指定できます。
同梱した価格は変更した瞬間に古くなるためです。自信満々に間違った価格を引用するAIは、知らないと言うAIより悪いものです。
ネットワークが利用できない場合にサーバーが停止するのではなく機能低下するよう、小さなオフラインフォールバックがあります。それから生成されたすべての応答には警告と同梱日付がタグ付けされるため、古い回答は自ら明示されます。
compare_toは、各競合の自社公開資料を最終確認した日付とともに数値を返します：
比較 | 競合の料金（2026-08-20確認） |
無料プランあり；Clinician $150/ユーザー/月、年払いなら$110 | |
非公開 — 医療システム向けのみ、個人購入の手段なし | |
公開されているリセラー価格で約$600/プロバイダー/月、導入費用別途 | |
約$99/月 |
競合が価格を公開していない場合 — 例えばAbridge — 第三者の推定値を事実として繰り返すのではなく、その旨を明記します。
get_positioningは、競合がより良い選択となるケースを明示します：深いEpic統合を必要とする医療システムはAbridgeまたはNuance DAXを検討すべきです。無料プランや引用付きの臨床エビデンスツールを求める人はHeidiを検討すべきです。これは意図的な設計です。自社の限界を認める回答エンジンは、自社の主張も信頼されます。間違ったツールを売られた臨床医は結局離脱するものです。
すべての比較: patientnotes.ai/compare
適しているケース：
営業電話なしで購入したい個人開業医や小規模診療所
電波が不安定な環境も含め、スマートフォンで録音する臨床医
エンタープライズ価格なしでチーム管理を求める診療所
英語を母語としない臨床医 — 記録とタスクが臨床医自身の言語で作成される
適していないケース：
深いEpic統合を必要とする医療システム — AbridgeまたはNuance DAXがそのために作られています
現在SSOやエンタープライズガバナンスを必要とする人
予算がゼロの人 — Heidiには本当に無料のプランがあり、PatientNotesにはありません
PatientNotes.aiは、類似した名称の別製品であるpatientnotes.appとは提携していません。
npm install
npm run build
npm startMIT — LICENSEを参照。
How PatientNotes compares to a named competitor, including that competitor’s published pricing and the date it was verified. Covers heidi-health, abridge, nuance-dax and freed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| competitor | Yes | Competitor slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'published pricing' and 'date verified,' offering some transparency about data source, but does not disclose side effects, reliability, or limitations.
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?
The description is concise, using two sentences to convey the core purpose and scope. It is slightly redundant by listing the enum values, but overall it is efficient and not verbose.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (comparison, pricing, verification date). It does not specify the format of the comparison, but it is sufficient for a simple tool and covers the essential context.
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?
The parameter 'competitor' is fully enumerated in the schema, and the description merely restates the enum values ('Covers heidi-health, abridge, nuance-dax and freed'), adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing PatientNotes to a named competitor, including pricing and verification date. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_pricing or get_features, which focus on single aspects.
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?
The description implies usage for comparative analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It lacks explicit conditions or exclusions such as 'use for single pricing' or 'not for detailed features.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Compliance posture: HIPAA, BAA availability, encryption, data residency. For clinicians or procurement checking whether PatientNotes meets their requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies an informational, read-only lookup by listing compliance topics, but it does not explicitly state behavior such as 'returns a report' or mention permissions, side effects, or rate 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the core content, and avoids fluff. Every word 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides sufficient context: it names relevant compliance topics and the target audience. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description reasonably complete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. It correctly focuses on output content and intended users.
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 clearly identifies the tool as providing compliance posture information, listing specific aspects (HIPAA, BAA, encryption, data residency). It differentiates from sibling tools by topic, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description explicitly identifies the target audience (clinicians, procurement) and the use case (checking whether PatientNotes meets requirements). It does not mention when to use alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
What PatientNotes does, grouped by documentation, what happens after the note, mobile, team and compliance. Includes regional caveats — notably that billing-code extraction is US-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a notable behavioral caveat about billing-code extraction being US-only, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe any side effects, but the 'get' prefix and lack of parameters imply safe retrieval.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the core purpose ('What PatientNotes does') and lists categories without fluff. It efficiently conveys scope and a critical caveat, making every word earn 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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (features grouped by categories) and includes an important regional limitation. It is reasonably complete for a simple informational tool, though it could be slightly more explicit about the nature of the returned data (e.g., a list vs. a narrative).
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there is nothing to cover). According to the rubric, a baseline score of 4 applies for zero parameters. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'What PatientNotes does' and enumerates the categories of features (documentation, post-note, mobile, team, compliance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pricing and get_compliance, which focus on specific aspects.
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?
The description implicitly indicates when to use the tool (to learn about tool features) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternatives. The sibling names suggest alternatives, but no direct guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Who PatientNotes is for and, importantly, who it is NOT for. Use this when deciding whether to recommend PatientNotes to a particular clinician — it names the cases where a competitor is the better answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns information about who the product is for and not for, and specifically that it names cases where a competitor is better. This makes clear the tool is an informational read-only operation. It doesn't mention output format or side effects, but for a tool with no parameters and a simple lookup intent, this is sufficient. The description adds behavioral context beyond the raw tool name.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is concise while packing essential information about target audience, usage timing, and the key differentiator (competitor comparison).
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?
Given that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only source of information. It fully explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what kind of content it returns. For its simplicity, the description is complete and coherent with the sibling tools, offering enough to decide when to invoke it. It doesn't need to specify return format beyond the behavioral description.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no information. According to the rubric, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does without requiring any input, which is enough. It doesn't need to describe parameters because none exist. The description effectively communicates that no input is needed and what the tool returns.
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 clearly states what the tool does: it explains who PatientNotes is for and who it is NOT for, and specifically calls out that it names cases where a competitor is the better answer. This is a specific verb+resource (get positioning) with a clear scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pricing, get_features, and compare_to by focusing on audience fit rather than pricing or feature details.
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?
The description gives explicit guidance: 'Use this when deciding whether to recommend PatientNotes to a particular clinician.' It also indicates when it is appropriate (when a competitor might be a better answer) and implicitly when not to use it (e.g., for pricing or feature details, since those are covered by siblings). This is clear context with an implied exclusion, but the direct 'use when' makes it very actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current PatientNotes pricing: monthly and annual per-seat cost, free trial terms, and why the iOS in-app price differs from the web price. Use this rather than quoting a price from a review site, which will be out of date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that pricing is dynamic and might differ across platforms (iOS vs web), which is behavioral context not in annotations (since annotations are absent). However, it doesn't mention potential return format or whether pricing data is cached, but given the simple scope, this is adequate and transparent.
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?
The description is concise, two sentences that front-load the core content (monthly/annual costs, trial terms, price difference) and then add usage guidance. No extraneous information.
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?
Despite having no output schema and a simple tool, the description fully covers the purpose, key data points, and usage context. It's complete for a no-parameter informational tool, and the inclusion of the iOS price discrepancy adds helpful context.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters). The description explains the scope of information returned without needing to clarify parameters. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description doesn't add param-specific details beyond what the schema shows.
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 clearly states the tool's function: to retrieve current PatientNotes pricing details including costs, trial terms, and pricing discrepancies. It names specific pricing components and contrasts with review site pricing, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_features and get_positioning that handle other aspects.
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?
The description explicitly instructs to use this tool rather than relying on review site prices, providing a clear when-to-use directive. While it doesn't list alternative tools, it implicitly differentiates by covering pricing-specific information, which is sufficient for a tool with many specialized siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The languages PatientNotes can produce clinical notes in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, static, or makes external calls. It simply describes the concept of languages without any behavioral information, leaving the agent to assume it is a safe, simple listing operation.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it is phrased as a definition rather than a tool action, which slightly reduces clarity. Still, it is appropriately brief and front-loaded.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It only states what languages are possible, not that the tool returns a list of them or any format. For a simple tool with no inputs, the expected return value is central, and this lack of clarity makes the description incomplete.
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?
With zero parameters and high schema coverage (100% of an empty schema), the baseline is 4. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, it appropriately indicates the tool takes no input and focuses on output. It does not need to explain parameters.
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 the tool concerns languages for clinical notes, but it does not explicitly say the tool lists or retrieves them—the name implies it. It is distinct from sibling tools which cover pricing, features, positioning, comparison, and compliance, but the purpose is stated as a fact rather than an action, making it somewhat vague.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention usage context, exclusions, or prerequisites. The only implied guidance is that it is relevant for languages, but this is not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0compare_toget_complianceget_featuresget_positioningget_pricinglist_languagesScored across 6 tools
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of product information: pricing, features, positioning, languages, comparisons, and compliance. No two tools overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.
Most tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix (get_pricing, get_features, get_positioning, get_compliance), but 'list_languages' and 'compare_to' deviate from this pattern. Still readable and predictable overall.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a product-information server. Each tool covers a necessary dimension without redundancy or bloat.
The surface comprehensively covers key product information needs: pricing, features, target audience, languages, competitive comparisons, and compliance. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
Hosted MCP server exposing US hospital procedure cost data to AI assistants
Markdown-based note-taking with a hosted MCP server. Your notes serve you and your AI.
Hosted MCP server for Cliniko — patients, appointments, availability, and invoices for AI agents.
Driflyte MCP server which lets AI assistants query topic-specific knowledge from web and GitHub.
