AgentLadle MCP CNINFO

by agentladle

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct role: listing, downloading, parsing, searching, page retrieval, and stock code lookup. No overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_cninfo_announcements, download_cninfo_announcement, lookup_stock_code). Minor variation in verb choice ('lookup' vs 'list') is negligible.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools covering the core workflow of discovering, downloading, parsing, and searching announcements, the count is well-scoped and avoids bloat. Each tool serves a necessary step in the process.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the primary lifecycle: list, download, parse, keyword search within a document, and page retrieval. Missing a cross-announcement search or category listing, but these are minor gaps that do not break the workflow.
Average 4.6/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses sorting by relevance, match modes, default values, and max results limit. It also hints at error handling (prompt download/parse on missing file) but lacks details on edge cases like zero results.
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?
Well-structured with strategy and rules sections. Each sentence adds value. The Args list is clear. The use of HTML-like tags adds structure but could be considered nonstandard; however, it aids readability and does not waste space.
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?
Covers purpose, usage, parameters, and error handling. Given the existence of an output schema, lack of return format description is acceptable. However, it could mention snippet highlighting or result ordering more explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains all four parameters: local_key ('Bundle key from list/download'), keywords ('1-5 search keywords'), match_mode ('ANY or ALL, default ANY'), and max_results ('Max snippets, default 5, max 50'). This adds critical constraints and context 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 clearly states 'Search a parsed announcement by keywords' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like download, list, parse, etc., by focusing on searching within an already-parsed announcement.
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?
Provides explicit strategy: 'Directly invoke this tool. Do not pre-check file existence' and suggests using Chinese financial terms. Critical rules specify passing 1-5 keywords and expanding synonyms. Though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It describes the transformation but does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or safety (e.g., idempotency, permissions). Adequate but not detailed.
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 with a main sentence, a strategy block, and argument explanation. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with purpose.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides enough context for usage and timing. Minor gaps on failure behavior, but overall complete given the simple interface.
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?
The schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains the parameter local_key as a bundle key with an example. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type and title.
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 parses downloaded announcement PDF/HTML into page-split JSON. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the strategy section distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_cninfo_announcement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The strategy explicitly says to call after a successful download or when JSON is missing. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, differentiating from other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: downloads to local storage, may fallback to HTML, and that periodic reports are out of scope. Also directs to call parse_cninfo_announcement after success. Lacks details on file storage location or overwrite behavior, but overall transparent.
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?
Description is well-structured with labeled sections (<strategy>, <critical_rules>, Args). Front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence contributes value. Slightly long but efficient for the complexity.
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 no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers usage conditions, parameter details, relationship to siblings, and exclusions. It tells the agent when to invoke and what to do after success, making it fully contextualized.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing each parameter with brief but useful semantics: stock_code is 6-digit, announce_date is YYYY-MM-DD (optional if local_key), title_keyword disambiguates, etc. Adds meaning beyond schema names and types, though not extremely detailed.
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 it downloads a CNINFO announcement PDF (or HTML fallback) to local storage. It specifies the resource (CNINFO announcement) and action (download). Distinguishes from siblings by being a fallback tool and having explicit conditions for invocation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Invoke ONLY as a fallback when keyword_search / get_announcement_pages returns file not found, or after list when you have a concrete local_key / announcement_id.' Also provides critical rules about preferring local_key and that periodic reports are out of scope, giving clear guidance on alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It adds behavioral context through strategy and critical rules (e.g., default page_count of 3, max 5). However, it does not mention error handling for invalid start_page or missing local_key, nor any authorization or rate limits. Still, the provided rules are helpful and non-contradictory.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a strategy section and critical rules. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The Args section is cleanly organized. Length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.
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?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters well. It omits error conditions or return format, but the output schema may provide that. Slightly lacking in describing what happens on failure, but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It does: local_key is 'bundle key', start_page is '1-based start page', page_count has default and max. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.
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 'Retrieve full page content for a range of pages from a parsed announcement.' This is a specific verb-resource pair, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like keyword_search (for specific facts) and download_cninfo_announcement (whole file).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The <strategy> explicitly instructs to invoke after keyword_search provides a start_page, and to not pre-check file existence. The <critical_rules> recommend preferring keyword_search for specific facts. This clearly guides when and how to use the tool, including exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that default categories exclude periodic reports and limit max is 50, which is good context. Could mention response format or pagination, but adequate.
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?
Well-structured with sections: purpose, strategy tag, critical rules, and args. Concise, front-loaded, every sentence valuable.
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?
Covers purpose, usage, parameters, and constraints. Has output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. Complete for a list tool with clear guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description provides detailed parameter explanations: stock_code format, category examples, date format, title_keyword, limit defaults and max. Adds significant value beyond 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?
Description clearly states it lists CNINFO A-share announcements (excluding periodic reports), and provides guidance to skip if user already has specific date and title, differentiating from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use (to discover announce_date/local_key/title before download) and when to skip (if user provides specific date and title, go to keyword_search or download_cninfo_announcement).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the tool is a diagnostic tool, describes the behavior of the refresh parameter (local cache vs re-download), and implies it is read-only by nature. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, but the context suggests it is safe. The description adds sufficient behavioral context beyond the schema.
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 and well-structured, with clear sections: main description, strategy, critical rules, and args. Every sentence is useful. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and quickly provides actionable guidance.
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 simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details, and behavioral rules. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides all parameter semantics. It explains stock_code as '6-digit stock code, e.g. "000001" or "600519"' and refresh as 'Force re-download of szse_stock.json from CNINFO (default: false)'. This adds meaningful examples and behavior beyond the schema's type/title fields.
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: 'Look up CNINFO orgId mapping for a 6-digit A-share stock code. Diagnostic tool.' The verb 'look up' and resource 'CNINFO orgId mapping' are specific. It is distinguished from sibling tools (e.g., download_cninfo_announcement) which deal with announcements, not code mappings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a <strategy> section explicitly stating when to invoke: 'Invoke ONLY when download/list returns "Stock code not found". After success, retry the original list/download call.' It also provides critical rules about preferring refresh=false first. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-cninfo MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/agentladle/mcp-cninfo/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/agentladle/mcp-cninfo)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-cninfo MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/agentladle/mcp-cninfo/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/agentladle/mcp-cninfo)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/agentladle/mcp-cninfo'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server