Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nace-mcp

nace-mcp

by DeJo90
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

nace_get

Look up full details for any NACE Rev. 2.1 code, including its label, level, and parent code, to classify economic activities accurately.

Instructions

Returns full details for a single NACE Rev. 2.1 code: code, label, level (section/division/group/class), and parent code.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "nace_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesNACE code — e.g. 'A', '01', '01.1', '01.11'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return fields (code, label, level, parent code), which is helpful, but it does not mention error cases, edge behavior (e.g., invalid code), or any side effects—though this is likely a read-only operation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and necessary output details. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

For a simple single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose and enumerates the returned fields. Minor gaps include no mention of error behavior or formatting, but these are not critical for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'code' documented and given examples. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns full details') and identifies the resource ('a single NACE Rev. 2.1 code'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like browse, search, and suggest by emphasizing 'single' code retrieval.

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 implies this tool is for fetching details of a known, single NACE code, contrasting with broader operations like browse or search. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools