Skip to main content
Glama
PantelisGeorgiadis

DICOMweb MCP Server

by PantelisGeorgiadis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

find-series

Searches DICOM series within a study using a Study Instance UID and optional filters. Returns series sorted by date, newest first, without retrieving image data.

Instructions

Searches DICOM series within a single study. Returns series sorted by series date, newest first. Does not retrieve instances or image data. Requires a Study Instance UID from find-studies.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSpace-separated DICOM key=value search filters. Keys are DICOM keyword names or 8-digit hex tags (e.g., Modality=MR SeriesDescription=CHEST). Special keys: limit=N, offset=N. Pass an empty string to return all series.
studyInstanceUidYesDICOM Study Instance UID (e.g., 1.2.840.113619.2.55.3). Obtain from find-studies.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses sorting order, scope (single study), and non-retrieval of image data. However, it does not mention pagination, error behavior, or rate limits, which are gaps for a query tool.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, sorting order, and constraint. No redundancy, and front-loaded with the main action.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers usage constraints, input provenance (from find-studies), and what not to expect. It is adequate but could mention output structure (e.g., list of series UIDs).

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%, and the description adds meaning by explaining the query parameter's special keys (limit, offset) and the empty string behavior. This provides value beyond the schema's basic 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 it searches DICOM series within a single study, returns sorted results, and specifies it does not retrieve instances or image data. This distinguishes it from siblings like find-studies and find-instances.

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 requires a Study Instance UID from find-studies, implying the usage context after that tool. It also clarifies it does not retrieve instances or images, guiding the agent to other tools for those tasks, though it does not name them explicitly.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools