Skip to main content
Glama

DRGSystem — German medical coding catalogs

by de.drgsystem

OPS-Kode abrufen

ops_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Liefert in 'focus' alle Angaben zu einem OPS-Kode: Kodier-Kennzeichen, Alters- und Geschlechtsbezug, AOP-Angaben nach § 115b SGB V samt Kontextfaktoren, Einträge des Alphabetischen Verzeichnisses sowie DKR- und SEG-4-Verweise. Dazu in 'parents' die übergeordneten Kodes und in 'items' die direkt untergeordneten. Ohne Kode aufgerufen liefert die Funktion die oberste Ebene des Katalogs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoOPS-Kode, normalisiert oder in amtlicher Schreibweise (z. B. '5470' oder '5-470.0'). Leer lassen für die oberste Ebene des Katalogs.
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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the return structure ('focus', 'parents', 'items'), the no-code top-level fallback, and the specific content included in the response. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is dense but well-structured, front-loading the main result ('focus') before addressing hierarchy and the no-code edge case. Every sentence contributes information with no filler.

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?

The description covers the primary lookup behavior, the hierarchical parent/child output, and the special case of calling without a code. Since an output schema exists, there is no need to restate return-value structures. Nothing critical is missing for this read-only exact-code lookup.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including the null behavior for 'code'. The description reinforces the no-code behavior but does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Liefert') and resource ('OPS-Kode'), then enumerates exactly what is returned: coding flags, age/sex references, AOP details, alphabetical index entries, and DKR/SEG-4 references. This clearly differentiates it from search-oriented siblings by describing an exact-code detail retrieval.

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 clear invocation contexts: pass a code to get details, or omit it to receive the top catalog level. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as ops_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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