Ssb No

Ssb No Classification

ssb_no_classification

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a Statistics Norway (SSB) KLASS classification (code list) and its correspondences, valid at a date or year. Answers e.g. "which KOSTRA group is Bergen in, 2025?" (id 112 = KOSTRA municipality groups, mapped to id 131 = municipalities by default) and lists all municipalities in a county (code_prefix "46" = Vestland) with their KOSTRA group for each of several years. Other ids: 131 municipalities, 104 counties. Without id lists classifications. Unknown id returns found:false. Source: Statistics Norway (SSB), KLASS classification service.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": 112,
      "code": "4601",
      "year": 2025
    },
    "name": "ssb_no_classification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	KLASS classification id, e.g. 112 (KOSTRA groups), 131 (municipalities). Omit to list classifications.
`code`	No	Match one code on either side, e.g. "4601" (Bergen) or "EKG12".
`date`	No	Exact date YYYY-MM-DD (instead of year).
`year`	No	Year; resolves to 1 January of that year. Default: today.
`years`	No	Several years in one call (max 10), e.g. [2023,2024,2025].
`target_id`	No	Target classification for correspondences (default 131 when id is 112). Omit for a plain code list.
`code_prefix`	No	Match codes starting with this on either side, e.g. "46" for Vestland municipalities.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`count`	No
`found`	No
`source`	No
`message`	No
`results`	No
`data_as_of`	No
`classification`	No
`classifications`	No
`target_classification_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the default correspondence mapping (id 112 maps to 131), that an unknown id returns found:false, and the upstream source. It does not discuss rate limits or result size limits, but for a read-only lookup with an output schema this is solid.

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 core purpose and the two canonical example queries are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information (ids, defaults, failure behavior, source). It is dense but not padded; the parenthetical example chains are long yet directly useful for choosing parameters.

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?

With 7 optional parameters, a rich schema, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to pick a mode and construct a call. The only minor gap is that it does not characterize result shape or cardinality (e.g. how many classifications a bare listing returns), which the output schema presumably handles.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents every parameter including the 112→131 default, so the description's parameter content is largely repetition. It adds only light framing about matching 'on either side' and the date-vs-year resolution, which is close to a baseline score.

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 names a specific verb and resource — look up a Statistics Norway KLASS classification and its correspondences valid at a date or year — and grounds it in two concrete worked examples (KOSTRA group for Bergen 2025; municipalities in Vestland via code_prefix "46"). It also disambiguates the cryptic tool name by spelling out SSB/KLASS and what the ids mean.

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?

It clearly states the mode-switching conditions: omit id to list classifications, omit target_id for a plain code list, and use code/code_prefix to match on either side. It does not name any alternative tool, but no sibling in the provided list overlaps with SSB classification lookups, so there is nothing meaningful to route against.

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

All Ssb No tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.