mymedi-ai-mcp-server

Medical code lookup (ICD-10 / CPT / HCPCS)

code_lookup

Read-only

Look up ICD-10, CPT, or HCPCS codes to retrieve descriptions, categories, active status, related codes, and DMEPOS fee schedules, including exact state-level rural and non-rural rates.

Instructions

Look up a medical code (ICD-10, CPT, HCPCS). Returns description, category, active status, and related codes. For DMEPOS (HCPCS) codes it also returns a labeled fee schedule: per-modifier (RR/NU/UE) national min–max ranges, or — when a state is given — that state's exact non-rural and rural rates. Source: the current CMS DMEPOS fee schedule quarter.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "code_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	Yes	Medical code to look up (e.g., "M79.3", "99213", "E0601")
`state`	No	2-letter US jurisdiction (50 states + DC/PR/VI). For DMEPOS codes, returns that state's exact non-rural/rural fees instead of only the national range.
`codeType`	No	Code system (auto-detected if omitted)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.7.9Nov 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / code / maxLength
```
Added value: +500
```

addedInput schema / properties / state

Added value: +{
+  "description": "2-letter US jurisdiction (50 states + DC/PR/VI). For DMEPOS codes, returns that state's exact non-rural/rural fees instead of only the national range.",
+  "maxLength": 500,
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedApr 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description goes beyond them usefully: it discloses the data source and freshness ("current CMS DMEPOS fee schedule quarter") and the branch-dependent response shape (national min–max per modifier RR/NU/UE vs. exact state non-rural/rural rates). It does not cover error behavior for unknown or expired codes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return fields, then the conditional fee-schedule detail. Three sentences, all carrying information; only the parenthetical code-system list mildly duplicates the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the burden of listing return values (description, category, active status, related codes, fee schedule) and does so. Minor gap: no mention of what happens for invalid/retired codes or when fee data is unavailable for a given code type.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the semantic consequence of the `state` parameter — that supplying it switches the output from a national range to exact state-level non-rural and rural rates, and only applies to DMEPOS codes. It adds nothing new for `code` or `codeType`, which the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("look up") and resource (a medical code) and enumerates the exact code systems it accepts (ICD-10, CPT, HCPCS), then names the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like drug_lookup or pa_required_check, but it does not distinguish itself from the very similar code_lookup_basic, code_reimbursement, or fee_schedule_lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives, despite three close siblings (code_lookup_basic, code_reimbursement, fee_schedule_lookup) that an agent could easily confuse it with. The conditional state/DMEPOS behavior is described, but that is invocation behavior, not tool selection guidance.

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