ask

lookup_code

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up Pinnacle Ask content by clinical/standards code — WHO ICF (e.g. 'b167'), ICD-11, ICHI, or SNOMED. Returns corpus entries crosswalked to that code. Useful for clinicians, researchers, and policy teams.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	Standards code, e.g. 'b167' (ICF), '6A02' (ICD-11).
`limit`	No	Max items (1–25, default 8).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	Sanitised jsonb projection from the locked ask_* RPC layer.
`tool`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`disclaimer`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns 'corpus entries crosswalked to that code', which is consistent and provides output context without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences with no unnecessary words. First sentence gives action and examples; second states return type and audience. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description adequately covers input, output, and use case. It could mention error handling for invalid codes, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple lookup tool.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by enumerating the supported code systems (WHO ICF, ICD-11, ICHI, SNOMED), which is not fully captured in the parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: look up content by clinical standards codes (ICF, ICD-11, ICHI, SNOMED). It distinguishes from free-text search (sibling 'search') and browsing (sibling 'browse') by specifying code-based lookup.

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 implies use when you have a specific code, and mentions the target audience (clinicians, researchers, policy teams). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'search' or 'browse'.

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

All ask tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: browse discovers taxonomy values, topic retrieves content for a value, compare does side-by-side analysis, fetch gets full answers, etc. No two tools overlap in functionality, and descriptions make their unique roles evident.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names are lowercase, using underscores for compound names (lookup_code, red_flags) while others are single words. This pattern is consistent and predictable, with no mixing of conventions like camelCase.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools covering search, retrieval, browsing, comparison, milestones, pathways, red flags, clinical code lookup, and a home overview, the count is well-scoped for a knowledge corpus. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full user journey: orienting (home), discovering (browse), searching (search), retrieving (fetch), comparing (compare), exploring (topic, milestones, pathway, red_flags, related), and code-based lookup (lookup_code). No critical missing operations.

Resources

Need Help?