Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DRGSystem — German medical coding catalogs

by de.drgsystem
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Zusatzentgelt PEPP abrufen

zp_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Liefert in 'focus' alle Angaben zu einem Zusatzentgelt des PEPP-Entgeltkatalogs: Betrag, auslösende OPS-Kodes und die Fußnoten mit Altersgrenzen und Übergangsregeln; in 'items' die Differenzierungen (ZPD) nach Dosis oder Menge mit ihren Beträgen. Ohne Kode aufgerufen liefert die Funktion die oberste Ebene des Katalogs.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "zp_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoZP-Kode (z. B. 'ZP04' oder 'ZP04.02'). Leer lassen für die oberste Ebene des Katalogs.
yearNoKatalogjahr — nur angeben, wenn ausdrücklich eine bestimmte Fassung gebraucht wird. Leer lassen (empfohlen): dann kommt die jüngste Fassung, in der es den Kode gibt, auch für inzwischen entfallene Kodes; welcher Jahrgang das ist, steht in 'year' der Antwort.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
infoNoWas über den Jahrgang zu wissen ist, etwa «Version 2026» (ICD-10-GM 2027) oder «Vorabfassung». Null ohne.
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.
interpretationNoNur bei einer Suche: wie die Suche die Anfrage gelesen hat. Null außerhalb der Suche.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context by describing the 'focus' vs 'items' result shape and the top-level catalog behavior when no code is given. It stops short of stating error behavior for an unknown code or how omitted/retired codes are resolved (that detail lives only in the schema).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded: the output structure is described first and the no-code fallback last, with no filler sentences. The single long sentence carrying the focus/items enumeration is somewhat dense but every clause conveys information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and the description nevertheless characterizes the two result branches. With only two optional, fully documented parameters and complete annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already fully documented, including the ZP code format example and the year fallback rule. The description's 'ohne Kode' sentence merely restates what the schema already says about leaving code empty, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Liefert ... alle Angaben zu einem Zusatzentgelt des PEPP-Entgeltkatalogs') and enumerates the returned content (Betrag, OPS-Kodes, Fußnoten, ZPD-Differenzierungen), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling zp_search, which is the one missing piece for a top score.

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 only implied: 'Ohne Kode aufgerufen liefert die Funktion die oberste Ebene des Katalogs' tells the agent how the no-argument case behaves, and the schema notes when to set year. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer zp_get over zp_search, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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
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