Skip to main content
Glama

Medical Terminologies MCP

by io.github.SidneyBissoli
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Validate Medical Codes

validate_codes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a mixed batch of medical codes against their source terminologies. Useful for retrospective analysis of legacy databases — flag codes that no longer exist, surface ICD-10 → ICD-11 replacements, and grade activity status where the terminology exposes it.

For each input { code, terminology }, returns:

  • valid: whether the code exists in the source terminology.

  • active: whether the code is currently active. Null when the source doesn't expose an explicit active/inactive distinction at category level (CID-10, ATC, ICD-11, RxNorm, MeSH all return null today; SNOMED and LOINC return a real boolean).

  • title: the official label/name when available.

  • replaced_by: a successor code, populated today only for ICD-10 codes that have a primary ICD-11 mapping in the bundled WHO transition tables.

  • source: human-readable provenance of the validation (terminology + release/version).

  • error: non-null only when validation couldn't be performed (network error, SNOMED feature flag off, etc.). valid: false + error: null means "code not found"; valid: false + error: set means "couldn't validate".

Terminology is required per code — auto-detection isn't supported because category codes like "A00" exist in both ICD-10 and CID-10. Accepted values: icd11, icd10, snomed, loinc, rxnorm, mesh, atc, cid10.

Hard cap of 50 codes per call; codes are validated in parallel through their respective clients, so total wall time scales with the slowest upstream + its rate limit (worst case ~10 s for a full batch hitting ICD-11).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codesYesList of code+terminology pairs to validate. Hard cap of 50 per call to keep total latency under ~10 s given upstream rate limits.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
totalYesNumber of codes submitted.
resultsYes
provenanceYesOne provenance block per upstream source that contributed to this response (contract v1.1; licenses are never merged; each block carries the origin diagnostics of ITS source)
attributionYesCanonical source URLs of this response (attribution list)
error_countYesHow many couldn't be validated due to upstream/network errors.
valid_countYesHow many were confirmed valid.
invalid_countYesHow many were not found.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / provenance / description
      Previous value: -"One provenance block per upstream source that contributed to this response (contract v1.0; licenses are never merged)"New value: +"One provenance block per upstream source that contributed to this response (contract v1.1; licenses are never merged; each block carries the origin diagnostics of ITS source)"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / provenance / items / description
      Added value: +"Bloco de proveniência (contrato v1.1): fonte, URL, competência, extração, diagnóstico de origem, citação e licença"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / provenance / items / 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 / items / 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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/openWorld true, destructive false), the description discloses a 50-code hard cap, parallel execution with ~10s worst-case latency tied to upstream rate limits, per-terminology null behavior for 'active', that 'replaced_by' is populated only for ICD-10, and the crucial error semantics distinguishing 'not found' from 'couldn't validate'. This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one and the parameter/behavior facts are well organized. However, the lengthy bulleted enumeration of return fields is partly redundant given a dedicated output schema exists, adding bulk that the schema already covers.

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?

For a batch validation tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: required per-code terminology with the reason it can't be auto-detected, the accepted enum values, the 50-code cap, latency expectations, and the null/error conventions. Nothing material is missing.

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 schema already documents the codes array, the per-code code/terminology pair, the maxItems cap, and the auto-detection rationale. The description largely restates these facts rather than adding new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The opening sentence names a specific verb (validate) and resource (a mixed batch of medical codes) against source terminologies, and the retrospective-analysis framing distinguishes it from single-code lookup siblings like icd11_lookup or rxnorm_concept. An agent can tell what this does without opening any schema.

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?

It states a clear context of use ('retrospective analysis of legacy databases') and enumerates the concrete outcomes (flag dead codes, surface ICD-10 → ICD-11 replacements, grade activity). It stops short of naming alternatives such as terminology_diff or map_icd10_to_icd11 or stating when NOT to use it, so no exclusions are provided.

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