Skip to main content
Glama

Medical Codes

by io.github.pipeworx-io

What Can I Ask Pipeworx?

suggest_questions
Read-onlyIdempotent

What can I ask Pipeworx? / what is Pipeworx good for? / what can you do? / give me ideas / show me examples / getting started / what data do you have? — the onboarding entry point for an agent that just connected and wants to know what is worth asking. Returns category-bucketed example questions (company financials, drugs & clinical trials, economics, real estate, prediction markets, weather, government & patents, science & academia, news) — each with the exact tool + argument shape that answers it, drawn from the live catalog of thousands of tools. Call with no arguments for the full spread, or pass topic (e.g. "finance", "pharma", "betting") to focus. Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities, etc.).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoOptional focus area: finance | pharma | economics | real-estate | betting | weather | government | science | news. Omit for a cross-category spread.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the response format (category-bucketed examples) and that it's drawn from a live catalog, which is helpful. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is somewhat lengthy but well-structured, front-loaded with alternative queries, and every sentence provides useful information. Minor room for tighter phrasing.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (category-bucketed examples with tool+argument shapes). It covers purpose, usage, parameter, and behavioral context, making it complete for an onboarding tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the optional topic parameter with examples ('finance', 'pharma') and clarifying behavior when omitted. It also mentions the full spread without arguments.

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 explicitly states it is the onboarding entry point, returning category-bucketed example questions with tool+argument shapes. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools.

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 clearly says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you' and explains omitting the topic for a full spread or passing a topic to focus. It provides clear context but does not explicitly list alternatives.

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