fhir_propose_writeValidate and preview a FHIR create or update without committing data. Use it before writes to review changes safely; no step-up authorization needed.
Propose a write — validates the resource and returns a preview. Does NOT commit. Safe to call without step-up authorization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource | Yes | The FHIR resource to write | |
| operation | Yes | Write operation type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. Description adds clarity that no commit occurs and no special authorization is needed, complementing annotations well.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose and key safety information. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Sufficient for understanding when to call, but lacks details about the preview output format. Minor gap given no output schema.
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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states the tool validates a FHIR resource and returns a preview, explicitly noting it does not commit. Differentiates from sibling commit and validation tools.
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?
Implies use for validation/preview before commit, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative naming. The 'Safe to call without step-up authorization' provides context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.