convert_japanese_eraConvert between Japanese era years (和暦: Reiwa/Heisei/Showa/Taisho/Meiji) and Western calendar years (西暦). Provide year for 西暦→和暦, or era + era_year for 和暦→西暦.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| era | No | Era name, e.g. 令和 or Reiwa | |
| year | No | Western year, e.g. 2026 | |
| era_year | No | Year within the era |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two operating modes and their input requirements, which is significant behavioral information for a pure conversion tool. It doesn't detail edge cases or output format, but the core behavior is well transparent.
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 the primary verb and subject, followed by precise usage instructions. No redundant words or phrases.
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?
For a simple converter, the description covers the essential purpose, inputs, and modes. The lack of an output schema means the description could ideally specify the return format, but the conversion output is generally inferable. Overall, it is nearly complete.
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 crucial combinatorial semantics: it specifies which parameters should be used together (year alone vs. era+era_year) for each direction. This goes beyond the isolated parameter descriptions and clarifies the intended usage patterns.
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's function: converting between Japanese era years and Western calendar years, and lists the supported eras. It is distinct from sibling tools, which handle character width conversion and case studies.
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 gives explicit input instructions for each conversion direction (year for 西暦→和暦, era+era_year for 和暦→西暦), providing clear context for use. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so no ambiguity exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: two text conversions (fullwidth/halfwidth and Japanese era), one character counter, and three company-related info tools (list/get case studies, get company profile). No overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: convert_*, count_*, list_*, get_*. The verbs are appropriate for each action, and the pattern is predictable across the set.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its niche purpose of Japanese text utilities and company information. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary expansion.
The tool surface covers common Japanese text operations (conversion and counting) and provides read-only access to case studies and company profile. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no hiragana/katakana conversion or contact details), but core workflows are covered without dead ends.