Search Japanese national laws / ordinances (e-Gov 法令検索 v2; Stage 1 covers the national level only — 自治体例規 ships in a follow-up). Each hit includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | 法令名 / 法令番号 / 略称・部分一致 | |
| since | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| issuerCode | No | 自治体コード JIS X 0401/0402 (国は不要) | |
| jurisdiction | No | '国' (Stage 1 only) | |
| ordinanceType | No | 法律 / 政令 / 省令 / 勅令 / 規則 / 憲法 … |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions output fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) but does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. The tool appears safe but transparency is limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that front-load the core action and scope, with no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover result structure and usage more. It mentions hit fields but omits pagination, ordering, or total count. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 57%, and the main description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., query, issuerCode). It does not explain parameters like limit, since, or status further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches Japanese national laws/ordinances via e-Gov, identifies the specific data source, and notes scope limitation to national level. It distinguishes from sibling watch tools (get, recent_changes) and entity_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for national-level law search and mentions a follow-up for local ordinances, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools, though the purpose is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.