Skip to main content
Glama

DRGSystem — German medical coding catalogs

by de.drgsystem

Fallpauschalen durchsuchen

drg_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Durchsucht den Fallpauschalenkatalog (G-DRG) nach Kode oder Bezeichnung. Die Treffer stehen in 'items' mit Partition, führender Bewertungsrelation, mittlerer Verweildauer und den Grenzverweildauern. Die vollständigen Werte aller Anlagen liefert drg_get.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNoKatalogjahr (z. B. 2026). Leer lassen für das aktuellste verfügbare Jahr.
limitNoMaximale Anzahl Treffer, 1 bis 100. Standard 25.
queryYesSuchbegriff: DRG-Kode (z. B. 'F01A') oder Bezeichnung der Fallpauschale (z. B. 'Herztransplantation').

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: results appear in 'items' with specific fields such as Partition, leading assessment relation, and length-of-stay values, and it notes that full attachment values are not included in this tool.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second describes the response shape and points to the alternative tool. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only search tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, this description is complete. It explains what is searched, what the response contains, and when to switch to drg_get. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (year, limit, query) are already documented with defaults and examples. The description reinforces that query accepts a code or label, but it does not add meaningful semantic information beyond the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Durchsucht') with a concrete resource ('Fallpauschalenkatalog (G-DRG)') and states the two search dimensions: code or label. This clearly separates it from catalog-specific siblings like dkr_search or ops_search and from drg_get, which is explicitly named for complete values.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states when to use the tool (search by DRG code or designation) and explicitly routes users needing the complete values of all attachments to drg_get. This gives an agent a clear decision rule among sibling tools.

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