Hong Kong Creative Goods Trade MCP Server
Provides access to the repository where the MCP server code is hosted
Provides testing framework for the MCP server's functionality
Used as the implementation language for the MCP server and required for running it
Provides status badges for the repository README
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Hong Kong Creative Goods Trade MCP Servershow me creative goods trade statistics for 2023"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Hong Kong Creative Goods Trade MCP Server
This is an MCP server that provides access to Recreation, Sports and Culture data in Hong Kong through a FastMCP interface.
Features
Creative Goods Trade
Get Domestic Exports, Re-exports and Imports of Creative Goods in Hong Kong
Filter by year range (optional)
Related MCP server: Hong Kong Food Data MCP Server
Data Source
Creative goods trade data from Culture, Sports and Tourism Bureau
Examples
Get creative goods trade statistics of Hong Kong
Setup
Clone this repository
Install Python dependencies:
pip install -r requirements.txtRun the server:
python server.py
Running Options
Default stdio mode:
python server.pySSE mode (port 8000):
python server.py --sse
Cline Integration
To connect this MCP server to Cline using stdio:
Add this configuration to your Cline MCP settings (cline_mcp_settings.json):
{
"hk-recreation": {
"disabled": false,
"timeout": 3,
"type": "stdio",
"command": "uvx",
"args": [
"hkopenai.hk-recreation-mcp-server"
]
}
}Testing
Tests are available in the tests/ directory. Run with:
pytestAvailable Tools
1 toolget_creative_goods_tradeC
Domestic Exports, Re-exports and Imports of Creative Goods in Hong Kong
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_year | No | End year of range | |
| start_year | No | Start year of range |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about what the tool returns, default handling of null year parameters, possible aggregation, or any restrictions. The only implied behavior is 'get' from the tool name, which is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and contains no fluff, but it is structured as a title rather than a functional sentence. It is under-specified for an action-oriented tool description; conciseness is fine but at the cost of clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has optional year parameters, no annotations, and no explanation of default behavior, the description leaves too much to inference. Even though an output schema exists and parameters are documented in the schema, the sparse topic-only description does not give an agent enough context to select and invoke the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented as start and end year of range. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline expectation when the schema already covers the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the data resource: Domestic Exports, Re-exports and Imports of Creative Goods in Hong Kong. It adds specificity beyond the tool name and makes the subject matter unambiguous, even though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (though none exist). The description simply names the data category without explaining what situations call for it or how it relates to other possible retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
v0.1.8- First observed
get_creative_goods_trade
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of confusion between overlapping tools. The single tool's purpose is clearly defined around Hong Kong creative goods trade data, making selection unambiguous.
The tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern ('get_creative_goods_trade'), which is consistent with common naming conventions. With a single tool, there are no conflicting styles to evaluate, so consistency is perfect by default.
A single tool feels thin for a server dedicated to Hong Kong creative goods trade, as it likely serves a narrow niche. However, the tool is not trivial—it addresses a specific data need—so the count is borderline rather than extremely mismatched.
The tool surface appears significantally incomplete: it offers a single access point for exports, re-exports, and imports without evident filtering, time-series, or aggregation capabilities. Agents would likely need additional tools to analyze trends, compare categories, or query specific years, which are absent from this server.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department (C&SD) open-data MCP.
Comtrade MCP — UN Comtrade API for international bilateral trade data
Census Trade MCP — US Census Bureau International Trade data
Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) public open API MCP. Keyless.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides access to hotel room occupancy rate data in Hong Kong through a FastMCP interface.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides access to Hong Kong food data, including wholesale food prices, through a FastMCP interface.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables querying Hong Kong private storage statistics such as completions, stock, and vacancy data via a FastMCP interface, sourced from the Rating and Valuation Department.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides access to government development, geography and land information data through a FastMCP interface, including data on new building plans processed by the Building Authority.1MIT