Skip to main content
Glama

Map ICD-10 to ICD-11

map_icd10_to_icd11
Read-onlyIdempotent

Maps ICD-10 codes to WHO-authoritative ICD-11 categories, returning primary and alternative mappings with titles and URIs for clinical coding, billing migration, and retrospective analysis.

Instructions

Authoritative ICD-10 → ICD-11 mapping using WHO transition tables (release 2025-01, bundled with the server).

Returns the primary 1:1 ICD-11 category for the ICD-10 code plus any alternative ICD-11 candidates that WHO documents (some ICD-10 concepts split into multiple ICD-11 entities). For each mapping, includes the ICD-11 code, title, chapter, and the Foundation URI / Linearization URI for navigating to the full entity definition.

Use this for clinical coding, billing migration, retrospective analysis, and any workflow that needs authoritative mapping rather than text-search candidates. Coverage: 11,243 ICD-10 categories (excludes chapters and blocks like "A00-A09" which aren't used in clinical coding).

Provide a code like "E11" (Type 2 diabetes), "I21" (Acute MI), or "A07.8" (4 alternatives in WHO's table). Both dotted ("A07.8") and undotted ("A078") forms are accepted.

Returns "no mapping" when the code isn't in the WHO category-level table — that's the honest answer rather than a fuzzy search fallback.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
icd10_codeYesICD-10 code to query in the ICD-11 search index (e.g., E11, I21.0, J18.9)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
foundYesWhether the code is in the WHO ICD-10 → ICD-11 transition table.
icd10YesSource ICD-10 entry from the WHO table. Null when found=false.
queryYesThe ICD-10 code as submitted (raw, before normalization).
sourceYes
primaryYesPrimary 1:1 ICD-11 mapping. Null when found=false.
provenanceYesProvenance block (contract v1.0): source, URL, data vintage, extraction instant, citation, license
attributionYesCanonical source URLs of this response (attribution list)
alternativesYesAdditional ICD-11 candidates WHO documents for this ICD-10 code. Empty when the primary is the only documented mapping (or when found=false). 1,461 of the 11,243 indexed codes have non-empty alternatives.
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it explains that the tool returns primary 1:1 mappings plus alternative candidates, includes ICD-11 code/title/chapter/URIs, covers exactly 11,243 ICD-10 categories (excluding chapters/blocks), accepts both dotted and undotted code forms, and returns an honest 'no mapping' rather than a fuzzy fallback. No contradictions with the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld hints.

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 front-loaded with a precise definition and flows logically through return details, usage, coverage, input examples, and edge-case behavior. It is somewhat lengthy (7 sentences), but each sentence contributes unique information; it could be slightly tightened without losing value.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description is not required to detail return values, yet it still explains them. It covers input formats, coverage, use cases, and the 'no mapping' failure mode. For a single-parameter mapping tool, this is fully complete and leaves no significant questions for an agent.

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?

The schema already provides a description for icd10_code (100% coverage), but the tool description goes further by giving concrete examples ('E11', 'I21', 'A07.8'), explaining that both dotted and undotted forms are accepted, and linking the code to WHO's category-level table. This enriches the parameter semantics considerably.

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 opens with 'Authoritative ICD-10 → ICD-11 mapping using WHO transition tables', giving a specific verb (map), resource (ICD-10 to ICD-11), and scope (authoritative, WHO-based). It further distinguishes from sibling text-search tools by stating it uses 'authoritative mapping rather than text-search candidates'.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'for clinical coding, billing migration, retrospective analysis, and any workflow that needs authoritative mapping rather than text-search candidates.' It also clarifies behavior when a code is absent ('Returns "no mapping"... rather than a fuzzy search fallback'), guiding the agent to choose the right tool for the job.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SidneyBissoli/medical-terminologies-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server