Skip to main content
Glama

DRGSystem — German medical coding catalogs

by de.drgsystem

SEG-4-Kodierempfehlungen durchsuchen

seg4kde_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Durchsucht die Kodierempfehlungen der SEG-4 der MDK-Gemeinschaft nach Nummer oder Text. Die Treffer stehen in 'items' und enthalten den Volltext der Empfehlung sowie die darin genannten ICD-, OPS- und DRG-Kodes.

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: Nummer der Kodierempfehlung oder Stichwort aus ihrem Text (z. B. 'Sepsis', 'Beatmung').

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by revealing that matches are placed in an 'items' collection and include the full text plus embedded ICD-, OPS-, and DRG-Kodes. It does not contradict the 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 two sentences: one for action and scope, one for result shape. It contains no filler and front-loads the core operation and resource.

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 three well-documented parameters and an output schema, this description is complete. The agent knows what is searched, what a result will contain, and the safety/idempotence profile from the annotations; year and limit are already documented in the schema.

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 semantics. The description's 'nach Nummer oder Text' paraphrases the query field description and adds no substantive parameter information beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ("Durchsucht"), a concrete resource ("Kodierempfehlungen der SEG-4 der MDK-Gemeinschaft"), and the search criteria ("nach Nummer oder Text"). It also specifies that results appear in 'items' and contain full text plus ICD-, OPS-, and DRG-Kodes, so the purpose is clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with seg4kde_get, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated: searching 'nach Nummer oder Text' tells an agent this is the broad search entry point, and the consistent search/get sibling naming pattern reinforces it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to seg4kde_get for exact recommendation retrieval.

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