Japan Toilet & Accessibility

ping

Read-onlyIdempotent

Connection test / health check — call this first to confirm the server is reachable. Returns server identity, deploy version, tool count, station coverage, and the update times of the realtime layers (JMA alerts, train status) so you can confirm freshness, not just liveness. No auth, no arguments, lightweight.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tools`	No	Number of tools exposed by this server.
`server`	No	Server name.
`status`	No	Always "ok" when the server is reachable.
`version`	No	Deploy version.
`realtime_layers`	No	Update times of the realtime KV snapshots (a field is omitted if that layer is unavailable).
`stations_covered`	No	Stations with accessible-toilet data.
`rate_limit_noauth`	No	No-auth rate limit.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable detail on what specific data is returned (server identity, deploy version, tool count, station coverage, update times), confirming freshness beyond liveness.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states purpose, the second details return values. Every word adds value.

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?

With zero parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema (not shown but described), the description fully covers the tool's behavior and return values. No gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to add parameter meaning; it is complete as-is.

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 is a connection test/health check with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it is a lightweight, preliminary call to check server reachability before using other tools.

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 explicitly advises 'call this first' and notes 'no auth, no arguments, lightweight.' While it provides clear context for when to use, it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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?