Skip to main content
Glama

DRGSystem — German medical coding catalogs

by de.drgsystem

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.

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 aus dem Alphabet (z. B. 'Blinddarmentfernung', 'Biopsie') oder eine Schlüsselnummer.
offsetNoAnzahl zu überspringender Treffer für das Blättern. Standard 0.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNoKatalogjahr, aus dem die Einträge stammen.
offsetNoAnzahl der übersprungenen Treffer vor dieser Seite.
entriesNoDie Einträge dieser Seite, absteigend nach Trefferqualität sortiert.
totalCountNoGesamtzahl der Treffer, unabhängig von der zurückgegebenen Seite.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent, so the safe-behavior burden is low. The description adds value by revealing that each hit includes the corresponding key numbers with their official title from the systematic directory, informing the agent what to expect in results.

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?

Three sentences, all essential: the action, the purpose/context, and the output composition. It is front-loaded and contains 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?

With a complete input schema, read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema available, the description contributes the missing conceptual context: what the alphabetical directory is, when it is the right entry point, and what the results look like. No critical gap remains for a tool of this complexity.

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 four parameters already have full descriptions, defaults, and examples. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but no compensation is needed given the complete 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 identifies a specific action ('Durchsucht') and resource (the alphabetical directory of OPS), and clearly explains that it maps clinical/colloquial procedure terms to key numbers. It also positions itself as the standard entry point when only the procedure text is known, distinguishing it from systematic-directory and code-lookup siblings without naming them explicitly.

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 states when to use it: when only the procedure text is known and the user needs the associated key numbers. This provides clear situational context, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full 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