Japan Toilet & Accessibility

get_active_alerts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Live river flood forecasts and landslide alerts for Japan (JMA official). NOT general weather warnings (storm/heavy rain/snow) and NOT earthquakes. Covers JMA 指定河川洪水予報 (river flood forecast, levels 2–5) and 土砂災害警戒情報 (landslide warning), each with level, affected area, official summary and issue time. Optional area filters by 2-digit prefecture code (e.g. 13 = Tokyo) or a JMA forecast-area code. Relay of official facts — not a warning issued by this service, not a life-safety system.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`area`	No	Optional prefecture code (01–47, e.g. 13 = Tokyo) or JMA forecast-area code.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	Number of active alerts.
`stale`	No	True if the snapshot is stale.
`alerts`	No	Active JMA river-flood / landslide alerts with level, area, summary, issue time.
`source`	No	Source label.
`coverage`	No	What this feed covers — string or array of categories.
`disclaimer`	No	Relay disclaimer (not a warning issued by this service).
`fetched_at`	No	When the snapshot was fetched.
`attribution`	No	Data source(s), license and provenance — an object, or an array of sources.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description adds critical behavioral context: 'Relay of official facts — not a warning issued by this service, not a life-safety system,' clarifying the tool's role and limitations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear front-loading of purpose and necessary caveats. It could be slightly more concise but remains readable and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (levels, area, summary, time) and the optional filtering. No critical information is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'area' is fully described in both schema and tool description with examples and acceptable formats (prefecture code or JMA forecast-area code), adding clear meaning beyond the schema's own description.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool provides 'Live river flood forecasts and landslide alerts for Japan (JMA official)' and explicitly distinguishes itself from general weather warnings and earthquakes, making the purpose precise and differentiating from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context on when to use (for specific JMA alerts) and what not to use it for (general weather, earthquakes). It also notes the optional area filter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond the 'NOT' statements.

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

All Japan Toilet & Accessibility tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: get_active_alerts and get_station_alerts both return JMA flood/landslide alerts, differing only by input type. Similarly, get_municipality_context and get_station_context expose the same underlying data via different resolvers, and get_station_context already includes hazard categories that get_station_hazard duplicates in more detail. These overlaps make it difficult for an agent to know which tool to select for a given query.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear 'get_' prefix (e.g., get_toilet_by_station, get_train_status), which is consistent. However, 'station_search' and 'ping' break the pattern, and the role-split text references a non-existent 'search_ramen' tool. The dominant convention is clear, but the exceptions introduce minor inconsistency.

Tool Count4/5

With 10 tools, the count is within a reasonable range for the server's broad scope (station info, toilet accessibility, hazards, alerts, train status). However, the redundancy between municipality_context/station_context and actives_alerts/station_alerts means not every tool earns a unique place, making the set slightly over-provisioned. Still, it is not excessively large.

Completeness3/5

The server covers the main info-retrieval needs for toilets, station hazards, alerts, and train status. However, station_search explicitly tells agents to 'search_ramen' for ramen details, yet that tool is not provided, creating a clear dead end. Also, the domain is broader than the server name suggests, and some peripheral data (e.g., detailed ramen profiles) is only partially surfaced.

Resources

Need Help?