Skip to main content
Glama

Medical Terminologies MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

LOINC Code Details

loinc_details
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get detailed information about a specific LOINC code.

Use this tool to:

  • Get the full name and description of a LOINC code

  • Find the component, property, timing, and system

  • Check the scale type and method

Provide a LOINC number in format "XXXXX-X" (e.g., "2339-0" for Glucose).

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
classYes
statusYes
systemYes
propertyYes
componentYes
loinc_numYes
provenanceYesProvenance block (contract v1.1): source, URL, data vintage, extraction instant, origin diagnostics, citation, license
scale_typeYes
short_nameYes
attributionYesCanonical source URLs of this response (attribution list)
method_typeYes
time_aspectYes
long_common_nameYes
external_copyright_noticeYes

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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, fully covering the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds only return-content context, which the existing output schema also supplies, and says nothing about pagination, auth, or error cases.

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 purpose in the first sentence and overall tight. The three-bullet list of returned fields partly duplicates what the output schema already declares, which is mild redundancy rather than padding.

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?

For a single-parameter, fully-annotated read tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly. The only gap is routing guidance against the many sibling lookup tools, which is small given how simple invocation is.

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 the lone parameter already carries its own description and a regex pattern. The description restates the same format ('XXXXX-X') and example, adding no semantics beyond the schema, so 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+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific LOINC code') and enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from the search/list family. It never names the sibling it complements (e.g. loinc_search, loinc_answers), so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

The 'Use this tool to:' block describes what you get, not when to choose it over loinc_search or the other LOINC tools. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative, so usage is only implied by the word 'specific'.

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