Medical Terminologies MCP

Map ICD-10 to ICD-11

map_icd10_to_icd11

Read-onlyIdempotent

Authoritative ICD-10 → ICD-11 mapping using WHO transition tables (release 2025-01, bundled with the server).

Returns the primary 1:1 ICD-11 category for the ICD-10 code plus any alternative ICD-11 candidates that WHO documents (some ICD-10 concepts split into multiple ICD-11 entities). For each mapping, includes the ICD-11 code, title, chapter, and the Foundation URI / Linearization URI for navigating to the full entity definition.

Use this for clinical coding, billing migration, retrospective analysis, and any workflow that needs authoritative mapping rather than text-search candidates. Coverage: 11,243 ICD-10 categories (excludes chapters and blocks like "A00-A09" which aren't used in clinical coding).

Provide a code like "E11" (Type 2 diabetes), "I21" (Acute MI), or "A07.8" (4 alternatives in WHO's table). Both dotted ("A07.8") and undotted ("A078") forms are accepted.

Returns "no mapping" when the code isn't in the WHO category-level table — that's the honest answer rather than a fuzzy search fallback.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`icd10_code`	Yes	ICD-10 code to query in the ICD-11 search index (e.g., E11, I21.0, J18.9)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`found`	Yes	Whether the code is in the WHO ICD-10 → ICD-11 transition table.
`icd10`	Yes	Source ICD-10 entry from the WHO table. Null when found=false.
`query`	Yes	The ICD-10 code as submitted (raw, before normalization).
`source`	Yes
`primary`	Yes	Primary 1:1 ICD-11 mapping. Null when found=false.
`provenance`	Yes	Provenance block (contract v1.1): source, URL, data vintage, extraction instant, origin diagnostics, citation, license
`attribution`	Yes	Canonical source URLs of this response (attribution list)
`alternatives`	Yes	Additional ICD-11 candidates WHO documents for this ICD-10 code. Empty when the primary is the only documented mapping (or when found=false). 1,461 of the 11,243 indexed codes have non-empty alternatives.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 27, 2026

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"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedSep 11, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: bundled WHO release version, primary 1:1 vs alternative mappings, returned fields, 11,243-category coverage, excluded chapter/block codes, accepted dotted and undotted formats, and the honest 'no mapping' failure mode. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loads what the tool does, then explains return behavior, usage, coverage limits, input formats, and failure behavior. Each sentence adds distinct operational value with no filler.

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?

Even with an output schema and safety annotations, the description supplies complete invocation context: scope, data source, coverage boundaries, accepted input formats, and what happens when no mapping exists. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented with examples. The description adds useful semantic detail beyond the schema: both dotted and undotted code forms are accepted, and examples carry clinical labels such as 'E11' for Type 2 diabetes and 'A07.8' having four alternatives.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: mapping ICD-10 codes to ICD-11 using authoritative WHO transition tables. It explicitly contrasts itself with fuzzy text-search candidates and defines coverage boundaries, so an agent can distinguish it from search/lookup siblings.

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 clear use cases (clinical coding, billing migration, retrospective analysis) and the key alternative class: authoritative mapping rather than text-search candidates. It does not explicitly name a specific sibling tool or spell out when-not conditions, so it falls just 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 tools Inspect

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.