Skip to main content
Glama

map_icd10_to_icd11

Read-onlyIdempotent

Convert ICD-10 codes to ICD-11 categories using WHO transition tables 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
queryYesThe ICD-10 code as submitted (raw, before normalization).
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.
primaryYesPrimary 1:1 ICD-11 mapping. Null when found=false.
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.
sourceYes
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors: returns primary 1:1 mapping plus alternatives, covers 11,243 categories, excludes blocks/chapters, returns 'no mapping' for unrecognized codes. These details go beyond annotations, which already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints.

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?

The description is concise (~150 words), well-structured with a clear opening, followed by details, usage guidance, and edge cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema (not shown but referenced), the description sufficiently explains input, output components (code, title, chapter, URIs), and covers edge cases ('no mapping'). It is complete for an authoritative mapping 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'icd10_code'. The description adds value by specifying accepted formats (dotted and undotted) and providing example codes, which aids correct invocation beyond the schema's basic type and minLength.

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: mapping ICD-10 to ICD-11 using authoritative WHO tables. It uses specific verbs ('maps') and resource ('ICD-10 to ICD-11 mapping'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search tools by emphasizing 'authoritative mapping'.

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 provides explicit use cases (clinical coding, billing migration, etc.) and advises against using it for text-search candidates. It also gives code examples and accepted formats. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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