Japan Toilet & Accessibility

get_public_toilet_by_city

Read-onlyIdempotent

List public toilets in a Japanese municipality, with wheelchair / baby-seat / ostomate flags, address and coordinates. Covers 612 municipalities nationwide (large cities capped at the top 50 results). Municipality names accept Japanese (e.g. 那覇市, 渋谷区); prefixing the prefecture improves accuracy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`city`	Yes	Municipality name in Japanese (e.g. 那覇市, 渋谷区, 上天草市). Prefix the prefecture for accuracy.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`city`	No	Resolved municipality.
`note`	No	Human-readable note.
`count`	No	Toilets returned.
`error`	No	Set when nothing was found.
`toilets`	No	Public toilets with wheelchair / baby-seat / ostomate flags, address and coordinates.
`attribution`	No	Data source(s), license and provenance — an object, or an array of sources.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral details: coverage of 612 municipalities, a 50-result cap for large cities, and accuracy tips for municipality names. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then key limitations and usage tips. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (one param, output schema present, annotations cover safety), the description covers purpose, scope, limitations, and input guidance adequately. No gaps identified.

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?

With only one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by specifying accepted formats (Japanese names) and advising to prefix prefecture for accuracy, which the schema description does not fully convey.

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 lists public toilets in a Japanese municipality, specifying the output includes wheelchair, baby-seat, and ostomate flags, address, and coordinates. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_toilet_by_station' by focusing on city-level filtering.

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 provides good context on when to use (for Japanese municipalities) and gives practical tips for parameter input (Japanese names, prefixing prefecture). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives like 'get_toilet_by_station'.

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?