Skip to main content
Glama

validar-codigo-medico

by io.github.encodi

Validate medical code (ICD-10-CM / CPT)

validate_medical_code

Validates medical codes against real data, not a model guess. For "icd10": real lookup against the official catalog of billable ICD-10-CM codes for fiscal year 2026 (NCHS/CDC, public domain), returning the official short description if it exists. For "cpt": the description catalog is owned by the AMA and requires a paid license, so it only validates the code's real structure (Category I: 5 digits; Category II: 4 digits + F; Category III: 4 digits + T) and estimates its area by public numeric range — no per-code descriptions. Costs $0.02 USDC (Base) per call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codesYesList of codes to validate, one by one. For icd10, accepts with or without a decimal point (e.g. "A000" or "A00.0"). Max 100 codes, 16 characters each.
systemYesCoding system: "icd10" (ICD-10-CM) or "cpt" (CPT).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorYesCall-level error (e.g. too many codes). null if none.
systemYes
resultsYesOne result per code, in the same order they were received.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses data sources, licensing restrictions for CPT, cost per call, and output behavior (e.g., returns official short description for icd10 if it exists, validates structure for CPT). This provides complete transparency about 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is information-dense but well-structured with clear sections for 'icd10' and 'cpt'. Though it's a longer paragraph, every sentence provides essential details (source, limitations, cost). The organization makes it easy to parse.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value details are not needed. The description covers all necessary behavioral aspects—data accuracy, licensing constraints, validation logic, and cost—making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters fully (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by describing accepted code formats (e.g., with/without decimal for icd10) and CPT category structures, which enriches understanding beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 description states the tool validates medical codes against real data, clearly identifying the two coding systems (ICD-10-CM and CPT). It differentiates from a simple model guess and provides a specific verb+resource, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

With no sibling tools, the description provides clear context by explaining what the tool does for each coding system and its limitations. It implies when to use the tool (whenever code validation is needed) and details what to expect for each system, though it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All validar-codigo-medico toolsInspect
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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion or overlap. The tool's purpose is clearly defined for validating medical codes.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'validate_medical_code' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is consistent and descriptive. Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is trivially maintained.

Tool Count3/5

With only one tool, the server feels minimal for its domain, though the narrow focus on validation makes it acceptable. It is borderline, as a typical utility server might offer a few more related operations.

Completeness4/5

The tool covers ICD-10 validation with official descriptions and CPT structural validation, which addresses the core need. However, it lacks CPT descriptions and does not support other code systems, representing a minor gap.

Resources