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 4.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_deal retrieves a single deal, list_areas and list_industries list master data, and search_deals searches for deals. No ambiguity exists between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_deal, list_areas, list_industries, search_deals). The naming is uniform and predictable.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of querying deal information and master data. Each tool serves a necessary function, and the count is neither too few nor too many.
The tool surface covers the core workflows: searching deals, retrieving details, and listing reference data. However, there is no pagination mechanism for search results beyond the fixed 20-item limit, and no tool for listing all deals without keywords, which are minor gaps.
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 declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds what is retrieved (full text, attributes), providing useful behavioral context 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?
Two sentences: first sentence states purpose, second sentence explains parameter source. No unnecessary words, front-loaded.
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?
With only two parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter sourcing, and what is retrieved.
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 descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces that these come from search_deals, adding minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.
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 that it retrieves full details (full text of business content, attributes) for one deal, which distinguishes it from search_deals (list) and list_areas/list_industries (other entities).
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 results, indicating when to use this tool (after search_deals). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond noting the return is a list of master data and cross-referencing search_deals. Given annotations, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. No unnecessary words; every sentence 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?
With 0 parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what is returned and how to use it with search_deals, covering the essential context.
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 (0 params), so baseline score is 4 per guidelines. The description implies no parameters needed and focuses on the return value usage.
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 it returns a list of area master (regions/prefectures) and explicitly connects to search_deals by specifying that the ID can be used as areaId. It distinguishes from siblings like 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?
The description provides clear context: the IDs from this tool should be used in search_deals's areaId. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the simple nature of the tool makes this sufficient.
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 and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool returns a list and implies no side effects. While it doesn't elaborate on rate limits or size, for a simple read-only list tool this is sufficient.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core functionality, the second provides a practical usage hint.
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 annotations covering safety, combined with the presence of an output schema (documenting return values), the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns and how to use the output in conjunction with search_deals.
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?
With no parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the input schema is fully covered.
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 explicitly states it returns a list of industry masters (業種マスタの一覧を返す), which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_deals by noting that search_deals lacks an industry ID filter, positioning this tool as the source for industry names.
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 a clear usage tip: to filter deals by industry, use the industry names obtained here as query keywords in search_deals. This tells the agent when to use this tool and how its output can be applied, fulfilling the usage guidance dimension effectively.
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 / gt10000 | |
| salesRange | No | 売上高レンジ(万円): lt1000 / 1000to5000 / 5000to10000 / gt10000 | |
| 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that results are paginated (20 per page) and can be filtered by various criteria, which is beyond the annotation's scope.
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, concise sentence that front-loads purpose and lists filters. No unnecessary 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 8 parameters all well-described in schema and an output schema present, the description covers the search intent and pagination. It could mention potential empty results or error cases, but with output schema that is often handled.
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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description groups parameters (keyword, region, price, etc.) but adds little new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies as schema covers details.
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 searches for M&A/business succession deals in MANDA with specific filter criteria (keyword, region, sales, price). It distinguishes from siblings: 'get_deal' retrieves a single deal, 'list_areas' lists areas, 'list_industries' lists industries.
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 specifies the search context and available filters. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling tool list and the nature of the description imply it for broad search rather than single record retrieval.
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!