MANDA
Server Details
Search Japan's M&A marketplace MANDA - public business-for-sale listings (read-only, no auth)
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: get_deal retrieves deal details, list_areas and list_industries provide master data, and search_deals performs searches. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_deal, list_areas, list_industries, search_deals. Perfectly predictable.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of searching and viewing M&A deals and referencing master data. Neither too few nor too many.
The tool surface covers the core workflow: search for deals, get details, and look up area/industry master data. No obvious gaps for a read-only search server.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_deal売り案件の詳細を取得ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
売り案件1件の詳細(事業内容の全文・属性情報など)を取得する。domain と localId は search_deals の結果から得る。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | search_deals の結果の domain | |
| localId | Yes | search_deals の結果の localId |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 案件詳細ページのURL。ユーザーに案件を紹介するときはこれを示す |
| title | Yes | |
| domain | Yes | |
| isClose | Yes | true なら成約・掲載終了済み |
| isManda | Yes | true なら売り手本人による MANDA 直掲載 |
| localId | Yes | |
| areaName | Yes | |
| isSoldOut | Yes | |
| priceText | Yes | 譲渡希望額 |
| salesText | No | 売上高 |
| attributes | No | 従業員数などの属性情報 |
| description | Yes | 事業内容の全文 |
| sellReasons | No | 売却理由 (例: retirement, no_successor)。MANDA直掲載の案件のみ |
| industryTypes | Yes | |
| registeredTime | Yes | |
| lastModifiedTime | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the returned content (full business content, attribute information), which goes beyond 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a necessary usage tip, with no extraneous words.
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 the presence of an output schema and complete annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter origin, and behavioral safety. It is fully sufficient for correct tool invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds the crucial usage context that domain and localId are obtained from search_deals, providing meaningful information beyond the schema descriptions.
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 specifies the exact verb (get), resource (details of one sales deal), and scope (one deal). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on a single deal's full details and linking to search_deals.
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?
The description explicitly states that domain and localId come from search_deals, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It doesn't include explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_areas地域マスタ一覧ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
地域マスタ(地方・都道府県)の一覧を返す。search_deals の areaId にはここで得た ID を指定する。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| areas | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, so the description adds minimal new behavioral info. It mentions the return of a list, which is consistent with annotations.
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?
Single sentence in Japanese, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and usage context. No extraneous information.
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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and how to use the data. Complete for a simple list operation.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the returned IDs for search_deals, but baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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?
Description clearly states it returns a list of area masters (region/prefecture) and explicitly indicates that the IDs can be used in search_deals. It is distinct from siblings like get_deal, list_industries, and search_deals.
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?
Provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: to obtain areaId values for search_deals. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a simple list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_industries業種マスタ一覧ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
業種マスタの一覧を返す。search_deals に業種IDフィルタはないため、絞り込みたい場合はここで得た業種名を query のキーワードとして使う。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| industries | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value by explaining the output's role in inter-tool usage, but no additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.
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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and usage context without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point.
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 the tool has no parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is complete. It explains the purpose and integration with sibling tools.
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?
The tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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 states the tool returns a list of industry masters and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explaining that search_deals lacks an industry ID filter, so this tool provides names for keyword filtering.
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?
The description provides explicit usage context: use this tool to get industry names to use as keywords in search_deals since that tool does not support direct industry filtering. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_deals売り案件を検索ARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
MANDA の公開中の売り案件(M&A・事業承継)をキーワード・地域・売上規模・譲渡額などで検索する。結果は1ページ20件。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ページ番号(1始まり)。省略時は1 | |
| sort | No | date を指定すると新着順。省略時は関連度順 | |
| query | No | 検索キーワード。案件名・業種名・本文にマッチする。スペース区切りで複数指定可 | |
| areaId | No | 地域ID。list_areas で得られる地方ID(例: 300)または都道府県ID(例: 306) | |
| priceRange | No | 譲渡希望額レンジ(万円): lt1000 / 1000to5000 / 5000to10000 / 10000to50000 / 50000to100000 / gt100000 / gt10000(1億以上すべて) | |
| salesRange | No | 売上高レンジ(万円): lt1000 / 1000to5000 / 5000to10000 / 10000to50000 / 50000to100000 / gt100000 / gt10000(1億以上すべて) | |
| sellerType | No | owner を指定すると売り手本人が MANDA に直接掲載した案件のみに絞り込む | |
| successionOnly | No | true で事業承継案件(後継者不在が売却理由＝高齢経営者の事業承継)のみに絞り込む |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | |
| deals | Yes | |
| total | Yes | 検索条件にマッチした総件数 |
| perPage | Yes | |
| hasNextPage | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context: results are paginated with 20 per page, and it searches 'public' deals. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resources. No wasted words; every part adds value.
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 8 parameters (all documented), an output schema (so return values are covered), and annotations, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the data source (MANDA) and pagination. Minor omission: no explicit mention of the public status of deals, but implied.
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 detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond summarizing the search dimensions (keyword, region, etc.), which is already covered by schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states it searches for public selling deals (M&A/business succession) using keyword, region, sales size, transfer amount, etc., with results limited to 20 per page. This distinguishes it from siblings: get_deal (single deal), list_areas (area filtering), and list_industries (industry filtering).
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?
The description provides clear context that this is the primary search tool for deals with various filters, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Sibling tools are clearly differentiated by their purpose, so the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!