Skip to main content
Glama

Consultar Código CID-10

cid10_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a specific CID-10 code and return its Portuguese name.

Use this tool to:

  • Resolve a code to its Brazilian description ("I21" → "Infarto agudo do miocárdio")

  • Confirm a 3-char category or 4-char subcategory exists in CID-10

  • Retrieve gender / cause-of-death restriction flags when applicable

Accepts both dotted ("A00.1") and undotted ("A001") forms; returns the canonical display.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesCID-10 code (e.g., "A00", "A00.1", "A001", "I21"). Dotted and undotted forms both accepted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hitYes
codeYes
foundYes
provenanceYesProvenance block (contract v1.1): source, URL, data vintage, extraction instant, origin diagnostics, citation, license
attributionYesCanonical source URLs of this response (attribution list)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / provenance / description
      Previous value: -"Provenance block (contract v1.0): source, URL, data vintage, extraction instant, citation, license"New value: +"Provenance block (contract v1.1): source, URL, data vintage, extraction instant, origin diagnostics, citation, license"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / provenance / properties / retrieval
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "additionalProperties": false,
      +      "properties": {
      +        "anomalies": {
      +          "description": "Anomalias superadas até o sucesso, somadas por classe, em ordem fixa; [] se nenhuma",
      +          "items": {
      +            "additionalProperties": false,
      +            "properties": {
      +              "count": {
      +                "description": "Ocorrências desta classe na chamada",
      +                "maximum": 9007199254740991,
      +                "minimum": 1,
      +                "type": "integer"
      +              },
      +              "kind": {
      +                "description": "Classe da anomalia (vocabulário fechado do contrato)",
      +                "enum": [
      +                  "timeout",
      +                  "network",
      +                  "http_4xx",
      +                  "http_5xx",
      +                  "rate_limited",
      +                  "malformed_body"
      +                ],
      +                "type": "string"
      +              }
      +            },
      +            "required": [
      +              "kind",
      +              "count"
      +            ],
      +            "type": "object"
      +          },
      +          "type": "array"
      +        },
      +        "attempts": {
      +          "description": "Tentativas somadas, incluindo as repetidas (>= requests)",
      +          "maximum": 9007199254740991,
      +          "minimum": 1,
      +          "type": "integer"
      +        },
      +        "requests": {
      +          "description": "Idas distintas à origem que compõem esta resposta (fatias, páginas)",
      +          "maximum": 9007199254740991,
      +          "minimum": 1,
      +          "type": "integer"
      +        },
      +        "unstable": {
      +          "description": "true se houve repetição (attempts > requests) ou alguma anomalia",
      +          "type": "boolean"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "required": [
      +        "requests",
      +        "attempts",
      +        "anomalies",
      +        "unstable"
      +      ],
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "description": "Origin diagnostics of THIS source in this call (contract v1.1): requests made to the upstream, attempts summed across retries, anomalies worked around (kind + count); unstable=true when any anomaly happened. null when nothing was measured (bundled dataset, or response served entirely from cache)"
      +}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / provenance / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "source",
      -  "source_url",
      -  "data_vintage",
      -  "retrieved_at",
      -  "citation",
      -  "license"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "source",
      +  "source_url",
      +  "data_vintage",
      +  "retrieved_at",
      +  "retrieval",
      +  "citation",
      +  "license"
      +]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: both dotted and undotted inputs are accepted, the canonical display form is returned, and gender/cause-of-death flags may be present. Output formatting is partly covered by the output schema, which caps this at a 4.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a tight bulleted breakdown and a closing note on input formats. Some content (dotted vs undotted forms) repeats the schema description, which is minor redundancy but not bloat.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns, accepted input forms, and use cases. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the code field, its pattern, and its dotted/undotted acceptance. The description largely restates that same dotted/undotted flexibility, adding little new parameter-level meaning, so the 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 ('Look up a specific CID-10 code') and scopes it to an exact-code resolution with an example ('I21' → 'Infarto agudo do miocárdio'), which implicitly separates it from the search-oriented sibling cid10_search. It never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation must be inferred.

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 'Use this tool to:' block gives three concrete triggering scenarios (resolve a code, confirm a category/subcategory exists, retrieve restriction flags), which is clear positive guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming cid10_search / cid10_chapter as the alternative for fuzzy or hierarchical lookups.

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.