Skip to main content
Glama

Medical Codes

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Within a Source

search_within
Read-onlyIdempotent

Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record. Pass the text you already pulled (e.g. a SEC 10-K body, an article, a long tool result) plus a natural-language query; get back the top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores. Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context, returns only the passages that matter, and every passage carries an offset so the agent can verify a verbatim quote. Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document. BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows; cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe document text to search inside (max ~200K chars).
limitNoMax passages to return (1-20, default 5).
queryYesNatural-language query — what passages do you want? E.g. "supply-chain risk", "fiscal year 2024 revenue", "drug interactions with warfarin".

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description reveals the embedding model (BGE-base-en), windowing (500-char overlapping), truncation at 200K chars with a flag, and that passages include offsets for verification.

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 concise (5 sentences) with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes all critical details in a well-organized manner.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, outputs (passages with offsets/scores), technical behavior, limitations (truncation), and usage context. No gaps identified.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context (e.g., example queries, default limit, max chars) but does not add new constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool performs semantic search inside a fetched record, returning passages with offsets. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded by explaining how it complements them.

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?

The description explicitly advises using the tool when a record is too large for the prompt, saving context. It suggests pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, but does not explicitly exclude smaller records.

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

All Medical Codes 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While most tools have detailed descriptions, the large number of similar data-querying tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, etc.) and overlapping domains (Polymarket, company research, medical) create ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix conventions: snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), camelCase absent, some with 'pipeworx' prefix, others not (bet_research, compare_entities). No consistent verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools for a server named 'Medical Codes' is excessive and misaligned. The vast majority of tools cover unrelated domains (finance, prediction markets, general research), making the count inappropriate for the stated purpose.

Completeness1/5

For medical coding, only three tools exist (search_icd10, search_loinc, search_medical_terms). The rest are tangential or unrelated, leaving severe gaps in medical code coverage.

Resources