Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HealthChain

HealthChain

by healthchainai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

validate_resource

Validate a FHIR JSON object against the spec and value-set bindings, returning issues for correction. Provides a machine-readable report for fix-and-retry workflows.

Instructions

Validate a FHIR resource (JSON object) against the spec, including required value-set bindings. Call this after constructing or editing FHIR JSON yourself; read issues[] (severity/diagnostics/expression) and correct the resource. Never raises.

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": {
      "resource": "<resource>"
    },
    "name": "validate_resource"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resourceYes
resource_typeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so description must cover behavioral traits. It states 'Never raises' (no exceptions) and mentions return format (issues[] with severity/diagnostics/expression). However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: first defines purpose, second gives usage and output structure. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description explains return value (issues[]). It is sufficient for a validation tool with simple output. Sibling context suggests no further explanation needed.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'resource' parameter subtly by referring to a 'FHIR resource (JSON object)', but does not detail the optional 'resource_type' parameter. Minimal added value over schema.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Validate', resource 'FHIR resource', and scope 'against the spec, including required value-set bindings'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_resource or get_resources.

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?

Gives explicit when to use: 'Call this after constructing or editing FHIR JSON yourself'. Also instructs what to do with output: 'read issues[] and correct the resource'. Missing explicit when not to use or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools