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 v1.0): source, URL, data vintage, extraction instant, 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.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the bundled WHO release version, the distinction between primary and alternative mappings, acceptance of dotted and undotted forms, and the deliberate 'no mapping' response instead of a fuzzy fallback. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is detailed but every sentence earns its place: purpose, return content, use cases, coverage, accepted input format, and no-match behavior. It is front-loaded with the authoritative mapping statement and structured so an agent can quickly decide whether to invoke it.

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?

With a single required parameter, a rich input schema, and an output schema present, the description covers all practical concerns: what the mapping is based on, what is returned, which codes are in scope, how to format input, and what happens for unmapped codes. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete examples (E11, I21, A07.8), stating that both dotted and undotted forms are accepted, and noting that some codes have multiple alternatives. This is helpful but not exhaustive; the schema already carries the core parameter meaning.

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 ('map') and resource ('ICD-10 to ICD-11') using authoritative WHO transition tables, and details the output: primary 1:1 category plus alternative candidates with codes, titles, chapters, and URIs. This clearly distinguishes it from search or lookup siblings by emphasizing authoritative mapping rather than fuzzy text search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly lists when to use: clinical coding, billing migration, retrospective analysis, and any workflow needing authoritative mapping rather than text-search candidates. It also explains coverage boundaries (excludes chapters/blocks) and the no-mapping behavior, so an agent knows what to expect and when this tool is not appropriate.

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

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.