Skip to main content
Glama

DRGSystem — German medical coding catalogs

PEPP durchsuchen

pepp_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Durchsucht den PEPP-Katalog (pauschalierendes Entgeltsystem für Psychiatrie und Psychosomatik) nach Kode oder Bezeichnung. Die Treffer stehen in 'items'.

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: PEPP-Kode (z. B. 'PA01A') oder Bezeichnung (z. B. 'Schizophrenie').

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
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so no safety disclosure burden remains. The description adds the result location ('items') and catalog context, but doesn't discuss match behavior, pagination, or errors; with the output schema present this is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with the action and resource front-loaded; the parenthetical expands the acronym and the second sentence names the result key. 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?

For a simple three-parameter search tool with full schema descriptions and an output schema, nothing essential is missing. The agent can select, invoke, and interpret the tool correctly from this definition plus its structured fields.

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 schema already documents query, year, and limit. The description only reinforces that query accepts codes or labels without providing additional parameter semantics 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') plus a named resource ('PEPP-Katalog') and specifies the two search axes (code or label). This clearly differentiates it from sibling catalog searches and from pepp_get.

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?

It clearly conveys this is the search entry point for the PEPP catalog by code or label. It doesn't explicitly name pepp_get as the alternative for exact single-code lookups, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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

Try in Browser

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