Skip to main content
Glama

Medical Terminologies MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

LOINC Answer Lists

loinc_answers
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the list of valid answers for a LOINC questionnaire item.

Use this tool to:

  • Find valid response options for survey questions

  • Get answer codes for data entry validation

  • Look up standardized answer lists

Only applicable to LOINC codes that represent questions with defined answer sets.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
loinc_numYesLOINC number (e.g., "2339-0")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYes
loinc_numYes
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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the applicability constraint for non-question codes, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about the return shape for codes without answer lists or error behavior. With annotations carrying the main burden, this is a modest addition.

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 with the core action, then a short bulleted list of use cases and one constraint sentence. Slightly padded by the three bullets, but each line is relevant and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 explanation. Combined with the applicability caveat and use cases, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly; the only slight gap is behavior for codes lacking defined answer sets.

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% and there is a single parameter whose pattern and example are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Get the list of valid answers for a LOINC questionnaire item.' An agent can tell this apart from loinc_details and loinc_panels by the resource. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Gives three concrete use cases (find response options, answer codes for validation, standardized answer lists) and an explicit exclusion ('Only applicable to LOINC codes that represent questions with defined answer sets'). No alternative tool is named for the exclusion case, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Medical Terminologies MCP 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