Skip to main content
Glama

DRGSystem — German medical coding catalogs

by de.drgsystem

Kodierrichtlinie abrufen

dkr_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Liefert in 'focus' den Volltext einer Kodierrichtlinie, in 'parents' ihre Einordnung im Regelwerk und in 'items' die untergeordneten Abschnitte. Ohne Nummer aufgerufen liefert die Funktion die oberste Gliederungsebene.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoDKR-Nummer (z. B. 'D002'). Leer lassen für die oberste Gliederungsebene.
yearNoKatalogjahr (z. B. 2026). Leer lassen für das aktuellste verfügbare Jahr.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNoKatalogjahr, aus dem alle Daten dieser Antwort stammen.
focusNoDer abgefragte Kode mit allen Detaildaten. Null bei einer Suche und beim Katalog-Einstieg (leerer Kode).
itemsNoDie Kodeliste der Antwort: bei einer Abfrage die direkt untergeordneten Kodes von 'focus' (bzw. die oberste Ebene bei leerem Kode), bei einer Suche die Treffer.
parentsNoÜbergeordnete Kodes von 'focus' als Pfad von der obersten Ebene abwärts (Brotkrumen). Leer bei einer Suche und beim Katalog-Einstieg.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Given the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it discloses the exact response roles and the default top-level behavior when 'code' is omitted. This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent predict what the tool will do.

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 sentences, no filler, with the primary behavior front-loaded and the no-argument fallback stated second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent retrieval tool with only two optional parameters and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. It covers return fields and the no-code case; the only minor gap is not steering agents toward dkr_search for lookup-style needs.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents 'code' and 'year' thoroughly. The description reiterates the empty-code behavior but adds no further parameter detail, such as year formatting or validation restrictions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool retrieves a Volltext of a Kodierrichtlinie and identifies the response sections 'focus', 'parents', and 'items'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like dkr_search, but its get-vs-search role and the no-code fallback behavior are clear.

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 description gives practical usage context: calling with a DKR number returns the rule content, while omitting the number returns the top-level structure. It does not explicitly tell the agent when to use dkr_search instead, but the invocation conditions are clear enough for a get tool.

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

All DRGSystem — German medical coding catalogs toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool is explicitly paired with a search and a get operation per catalog, with distinct roles: search returns hits, get returns full records plus hierarchy. Potential confusion between ICD/OPS systematic and alphabetic searches is actively resolved in the descriptions by cross-referencing exactly when to use each.

Naming Consistency5/5

The vast majority of tools follow a predictable <catalog>_search and <catalog>_get pattern, with alphabetic variants like icd10alpha_search/icd10alpha_get. The single exception, lg_ops_strukturmerkmale, is still descriptive and clearly tied to the Leistungsgruppe domain, so the overall naming remains coherent.

Tool Count4/5

At exactly 25 tools, the server sits at the heavy end of the typical range, but each pair covers a distinct official German medical coding catalog or reference work. Given the broad scope—ATC, ICD, OPS, DRG, PEPP, DKR, SEG-4, hospitals, Leistungsgruppen, and Zusatzentgelte—the count is justified rather than bloated.

Completeness5/5

The server provides consistent search and full-record retrieval for every catalog it exposes, including alphabetic indexes where relevant and hierarchy browsing via get-without-code. Cross-references between ICD, OPS, DRG, ATC, DKR, and SEG-4 are integrated into the get operations, so there are no obvious dead ends for the domain.

Resources