revisor-notas
Related Servers
Alternatives to revisor-notas
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables secure natural language querying of a clinical SQL Server database using a local Ollama model, with strict SQL validation to protect sensitive data.-

soapnoteapi-mcpofficial
AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to turn clinical transcripts or audio recordings into structured SOAP notes, ICD-10/CPT billing codes, patient summaries, and visit summaries via SOAPNoteAPI.655 npmMIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables privacy-first medical document analysis with multi-perspective AI review. Ingest documents, run consilium reviews, generate doctor letters, and search patient memory—all through natural language.Apache 2.0
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables local analysis of unstructured documents (PDF, DOCX, PPTX, SVG, PNG) by extracting text and structure with citation anchors, and verifies summaries against source material before a human approves saving a report.9-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables local detection of protected health information in source code before it reaches LLM prompts, log statements, or analytics calls.280 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables healthcare systems to parse HL7 v2 messages, convert them to FHIR R4 Bundles, validate FHIR resources, and detect/govern PHI with HIPAA, EU MDR, and GDPR compliance evidence for AI governance.MIT
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have distinct outputs: one returns a validation verdict, the other returns inline annotations. They overlap in that both identify problems, but their purposes and return formats are clearly separated.
Both names follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (validar_nota_soap, sugerir_correcoes), which is consistent. The 'soap' qualifier on one name is a minor deviation but does not break the overall style.
Only two tools exist, which feels thin for a general-purpose note-review server. However, the narrow scope of validating and suggesting corrections makes the count acceptable, though barely.
The surface covers the core workflow: validate and get inline suggestions. There is no automatic rewrite tool, but the description explicitly states that is intentional, so no obvious dead ends exist.