mcp-revenue-empire — Japan public-data ledgers

entity_search

Search a company/person name across ALL ledgers (sanctions, licenses, recalls, pharma, bids, subsidies, grants, public comments, ordinances, ToS, real-estate, land-price). Returns hits grouped per ledger, each with matchedField, a summary, detailUrl and ledgerVerified (hash-chain integrity). ledgerVerified proves the records were not altered after they were recorded here — NOT the truth of the underlying data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max hits per ledger (1-100)
`query`	Yes	Entity name (company / person), partial match

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses output structure (grouped per ledger, matchedField, summary, detailUrl) and defines ledgerVerified integrity meaning. Lacks mention of rate limits or pagination but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 filler. First sentence sets scope and purpose, second explains output. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Adequate for a simple search tool with 2 params and no output schema. Covers output grouping and ledgerVerified concept. Could expand on matchedField and summary, but not critical.

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 coverage is 100% so description adds little beyond schema. Repeats 'partial match' and limit range. No additional semantic explanation.

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?

Clearly states it searches company/person names across ALL listed ledgers, distinguishing it from per-ledger watch siblings. The verb 'search' and resource 'entity across all ledgers' is specific.

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?

Implicitly provides context for cross-ledger search vs per-ledger watches, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use alternatives.

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

All mcp-revenue-empire — Japan public-data ledgers 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

B3.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinguished by domain prefixes (e.g., bid_watch, grant_watch) and specific action verbs. However, the high number of similarly structured watch tools could still cause confusion, though descriptions clarify exact purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows a consistent `domain_subdomain_action` pattern with underscores, e.g., `agent_audit_query`, `bid_watch_search`. Even long names like `commerce_catalog_agent_readiness_score` adhere to this structure.

Tool Count2/5

With 147 tools, the server is far too broad, covering weather, carbon estimates, domain intel, and more—well beyond its stated 'Japan public-data ledgers' scope. This sheer volume overwhelms agents and dilutes focus.

Completeness3/5

The server offers many read-only tools for Japanese public data (bids, grants, licenses, etc.), but lacks create/update/delete operations for those domains. Additionally, numerous unrelated tools (e.g., carbon estimates, weather) feel tacked on, leaving gaps in core coverage.

Resources

Need Help?