Skip to main content
Glama

Clinicaltables

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Icd9cm

icd9cm
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Old ICD-9 code for [diagnosis]" / "pre-2015 diagnosis codes" — search legacy ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes. Use ONLY when working with pre-2015 US clinical records; new claims must use icd10cm. Same shape as icd10cm.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dfNoComma-separated display fields to use in the `displays` array. Default varies per table; usually the canonical name.
efNoComma-separated extra fields to include per match. Field names vary per table; check NLM docs at clinicaltables.nlm.nih.gov.
countNoMaximum matches to return. Default 7, max 500. Use 1–3 for typeahead UX, 20–50 for browsing.
termsYesSearch query — prefix/contains match against canonical names. Whitespace-split into AND tokens. Example: "asthma".

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds context of being a search tool for legacy codes and references icd10cm for shape, reinforcing the read-only nature. No contradictions.

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?

Description is two sentences long, with no filler. Every word serves a purpose: defines the tool, specifies usage context, and references a sibling tool for shape consistency.

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?

For a search tool with 4 well-documented parameters and rich annotations, the description covers scope, legacy nature, and usage guidance. Lacks explicit output format but references icd10cm shape, which is sufficient. Minor gap in not describing return structure independently.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. Description does not add additional meaning or usage hints beyond the schema, but baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema adequately defines parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches legacy ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes, specifying verb (search) and resource (legacy codes). It distinguishes from sibling icd10cm by noting it is for pre-2015 records, and mentions 'Same shape as icd10cm' for consistency.

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 states when to use ('only when working with pre-2015 US clinical records') and when not to ('new claims must use icd10cm'). Provides clear directional guidance by naming the alternative tool.

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

All Clinicaltables 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool groups (ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research, conditions/disease_names, polymarket_* family) have overlapping purposes, requiring careful reading of descriptions to differentiate. While many tools are conceptually distinct, the similarity within domains could lead to agent misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is mostly snake_case but patterns vary: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx), noun_noun (entity_profile), single verb (forget, recall), and some adjectives (recent_changes). No consistent structure across the set, though individual names are descriptive.

Tool Count2/5

With 40 tools, the server is overly large for typical coherence. The tool count exceeds the 15–25 range deemed borderline, making it hard for agents to navigate and select efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers medical coding (ICD, LOINC, UCUM, drugs, procedures), financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools. Missing but minor elements (e.g., CPT codes) do not significantly hinder common workflows.

Resources