CNBS MCP Server

Get Source Categories

cnbs_get_source_categories

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve category information for a specific data source from CNBS, such as census, international, or department. Provide the source name to get its classification details.

Instructions

获取特定数据源的分类信息。

Args:

source (string): 数据源名称，如 "census"、"international"、"department"

Returns: 数据源的分类信息

示例： cnbs_get_source_categories(source="census") cnbs_get_source_categories(source="international")

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": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "cnbs_get_source_categories"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	Yes	数据源名称

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Apr 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns category information, which does not contradict the annotations.

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, well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, examples), and every sentence serves a purpose. No unnecessary text.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. However, it lacks detail on the return format or structure, which could aid the agent.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with parameter description. The description adds value by providing concrete example values for the 'source' parameter (census, international, department), which are not in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets category information for a specific data source, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cnbs_get_categories, relying on the tool name's context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Examples are provided for valid source values, implying usage context. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cnbs_get_categories), or when not to use it.

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