Skip to main content
Glama

Hitori Hojokin - Japan subsidies for solo founders

補助金を探す

search_subsidies
Read-only

日本の補助金・助成金を、従業員0人のひとり社長・個人事業主が申請できるかの判定付きで探す。国(jGrants等)と自治体の制度を毎日更新。結果の url は当サイトの制度ページで、ユーザーに示すときはこのリンクと出典を添えること。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_subsidies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo件数(既定20・最大20)
offsetNo何件目から返すか(ページ送り・既定0)。total と limit を見て進める
statusNoopen=募集中と受付開始前(既定)/all=締切済みも含む
keywordNo制度名に含まれる語
purposeNo目的のスラッグか名称(例: setsubi-it / 新たな事業を行いたい)
for_soloNotrue(既定)=従業員0人のひとり社長が申請しうる制度だけ(大型・委託公募・寄附制度を除く)
prefectureNo都道府県名(例: 東京都)。全国対象の制度も含めて返す
deadline_within_daysNo今日からN日以内に締切の制度だけ

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset / description
      Added value: +"何件目から返すか(ページ送り・既定0)。total と limit を見て進める"
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset / maximum
      Added value: +5000
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context on top: the data is refreshed daily, the returned url points at the site's own program page, and there is an output-handling obligation to include the link and the source when presenting to users. It does not describe result shape or pagination behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: what is searched, how fresh it is, and how to present the results. The most important constraint (the applicability judgment and coverage) is front-loaded, and the attribution rule is placed last where it belongs as an output-handling note.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an eight-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description is close to complete: it establishes scope, freshness, result-link semantics, and the attribution obligation an agent would otherwise miss. What it leaves out is the response envelope (that total exists and how to page through with offset/limit) and any differentiation from get_subsidy.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented, and the description must add meaning beyond that. It does give useful framing for for_solo (the applicability judgment is the tool's core promise) and implies pagination via the url/count framing, but it offers no syntax or semantics for keyword, purpose, or deadline_within_days. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource (search Japanese subsidies/grants) plus a distinctive qualifier: results carry an eligibility judgment for a zero-employee solo proprietor, and coverage spans both national (jGrants) and municipal programs. That is specific enough to separate it from a plain catalog lookup, but it never names the sibling get_subsidy, so the boundary with the detail tool is left implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: search the catalog, then present results with link and source. There is no when-to-use-this-vs-get_subsidy guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no note about whether this returns summaries that must be followed up with the detail tool. The attribution instruction is about handling output, not about choosing this tool.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources