Retrieve all ICD-10 chapters with codes and diagnostic ranges, including equivalent ICD-10 chapter mappings for ICD-9 codes used from 1992 to 1997.
Lista os 22 capítulos da CID-10 com seus códigos e faixas de diagnóstico. Os cubos de 1992–1997 (diagnóstico em CID-9) trazem cid_chapter como o capítulo CID-10 equivalente (mapa por categoria em src/data/cid9-chapters.json).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for conveying behavior. It states what the tool lists but does not explicitly mention that it is a read-only operation or its output format. Since it is a straightforward listing, the behavior is largely implied, but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the core functionality and additional mapping context without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns (chapter list with codes and ranges) and why it is relevant (mapping for older cubes). It could optionally mention the output format, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the description does not discuss any. Since the baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or additional parameter information, this score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists the 22 ICD-10 chapters with their codes and diagnostic ranges, which is a specific and unambiguous purpose. It also provides additional context about mapping older CID-9 cubes to CID-10 chapters, distinguishing it from simple lookup tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for referencing ICD-10 chapters or mapping CID-9 data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It mentions the mapping file but does not provide direct instructions like 'use this to get chapter names' or 'use this for CID-9 to CID-10 mapping'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.