DRGSystem — German medical coding catalogs

OPS Alphabet durchsuchen

opsalpha_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Durchsucht das Alphabetische Verzeichnis des OPS. Das Alphabet führt die klinischen und umgangssprachlichen Bezeichnungen eines Eingriffs und weist ihnen die Schlüsselnummern zu — der übliche Einstieg, wenn nur der Eingriffstext bekannt ist. Jeder Treffer nennt die zugehörigen Schlüsselnummern bereits mit ihrem amtlichen Titel aus dem systematischen Verzeichnis.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "opsalpha_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`year`	No	Katalogjahr (z. B. 2026). Leer lassen für das aktuellste verfügbare Jahr.
`limit`	No	Maximale Anzahl Treffer, 1 bis 100. Standard 25.
`query`	Yes	Suchbegriff aus dem Alphabet (z. B. 'Blinddarmentfernung', 'Biopsie') oder eine Schlüsselnummer.
`offset`	No	Anzahl zu überspringender Treffer für das Blättern. Standard 0.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`year`	No	Katalogjahr, aus dem die Einträge stammen.
`offset`	No	Anzahl der übersprungenen Treffer vor dieser Seite.
`entries`	No	Die Einträge dieser Seite, absteigend nach Trefferqualität sortiert.
`totalCount`	No	Gesamtzahl der Treffer, unabhängig von der zurückgegebenen Seite.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 16, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / entries / items / properties / code

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Fortlaufende Satznummer des BfArM innerhalb des Alphabetischen Verzeichnisses. Kein OPS-Kode.",
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / entries / items / properties / textHighlight

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Nur für die Trefferhervorhebung im Web-Katalog: Gewicht je Zeichen von 'text' — wie wörtlich die Suchanfrage das jeweilige Wort getroffen hat. 1,00 das Wort selbst, 0,75 eine Wortform oder ein Präfix, 0,50 ein Bestandteil eines zusammengesetzten Wortes, 0,25 ein Synonym oder ein korrigierter Tippfehler. Null außerhalb einer Textsuche. Über MCP immer null.",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  "type": [
-    "array",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 13, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / entries / items / properties / textHighlight

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Nur für die Trefferhervorhebung im Web-Katalog: Gewicht je Zeichen von 'text' — wie wörtlich die Suchanfrage das jeweilige Wort getroffen hat. 1,00 das Wort selbst, 0,75 eine Wortform oder ein Präfix, 0,50 ein Bestandteil eines zusammengesetzten Wortes, 0,25 ein Synonym oder ein korrigierter Tippfehler. Null außerhalb einer Textsuche. Über MCP immer null.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "type": [
+    "array",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's safety burden is low. It adds value by specifying that each hit includes the associated key numbers and the official title from the systematic directory, giving agents a clear expectation of the response content. This goes beyond the annotations and is useful.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and output. It is concise, well-structured, and avoids redundancy.

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?

The tool is a straightforward search operation with an output schema present. The description explains what the results contain (key numbers and titles), which is the key missing context. It does not explicitly mention pagination behavior, but that is covered by the offset/limit parameters in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., query can be a text or a code, limit/offset defaults). It reinforces the purpose of the query but adds no new semantics, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 clearly states the tool's function: searching the alphabetical directory of OPS, mapping clinical/colloquial procedure names to key numbers. It also distinguishes it from siblings by noting it is the typical entry point when only the procedure text is known, and each hit includes the official title. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'the usual entry point when only the procedure text is known,' implying the tool is for text-based lookups rather than code-based ones. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like ops_search or opsalpha_get, but the scenario is well-stated and leaves little room for misinterpretation.

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 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?