Skip to main content
Glama

Search LOINC

loinc_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search for laboratory tests, clinical observations, and measurements in LOINC (Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes).

Use this tool to:

  • Find LOINC codes for lab tests (e.g., "glucose", "hemoglobin")

  • Search for clinical measurements and vital signs

  • Look up diagnostic observations

Returns matching LOINC codes with names, components, and properties.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch term (test name, keyword, or partial LOINC code)
max_resultsNoMaximum number of results (1-100). Default: 25

Output Schema

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

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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral note is the shape of the return ('names, components, and properties'), which duplicates information better served by the output schema. Adds little beyond structured fields.

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 a one-sentence definition, then scannable bullets, then the return summary. Sized appropriately, with only minor redundancy between the intro sentence's enumeration and the bullet list.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering the return shape, the description needs only to establish purpose and context, which it does. The remaining gap is disambiguation from sibling LOINC tools, which matters given this tool set's density.

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 both parameters (query, max_results) are fully documented in the schema with types, bounds, and defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-rule detail (e.g., partial vs exact matching), 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 (Search) and resource (LOINC lab tests/clinical observations/measurements), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it never differentiates itself from the many LOINC siblings (loinc_details, loinc_answers, loinc_panels, map_loinc_to_snomed), so an agent must infer which LOINC tool fits.

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:' bullets give clear positive contexts (finding codes for lab tests, vital signs, diagnostic observations). There are no exclusions or named alternatives despite several overlapping LOINC siblings, so it stops short of the when-not guidance a 5 requires.

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.