connectMap a clinical code (ICD-10-CM, SNOMED CT, RxCUI, LOINC, NDC, MeSH, HGNC) to MedlinePlus consumer-health topics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Code value (e.g. "J00" for ICD-10-CM acute nasopharyngitis) | |
| lang | No | en (default) | es | |
| code_system | Yes | Short name or OID — ICD-10-CM | SNOMED | RxNorm | LOINC | NDC | MeSH | HGNC | ICD-9-CM |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "code": "J00",
+ "code_system": "ICD-10-CM"
+ },
+ {
+ "code": "11161003",
+ "code_system": "SNOMED",
+ "lang": "es"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Response from MedlinePlus Connect API mapping clinical codes to topics",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., behavior on unmapped codes, rate limits, or language handling) but is consistent with the annotations. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation-provided information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It is extremely concise while conveying the essential functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description needn't explain return values. It covers the main mapping function and the schema covers parameter details. It lacks mention of edge cases or language-specific behavior, but for a straightforward mapping tool with good annotations and schema, this is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including the list of allowed code systems and the lang options. The description duplicates some of this information (e.g., code system list) but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: mapping specific clinical code systems (ICD-10-CM, SNOMED CT, etc.) to MedlinePlus consumer-health topics. The verb 'Map' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like resolve_entity or compare_entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without mentioning scenarios or alternative tools, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.