Search e-Gov public-comment notices. Each hit includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified (hash-chain integrity).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| agency | No | 所管府省・行政機関 | |
| status | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context by stating each hit includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified, indicating hash-chain integrity. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is destructive.
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?
The description is concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key fields. While efficient, it could include more detail without sacrificing brevity.
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?
With no output schema, the description only partially explains return values (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified). It omits other fields, pagination, handling of 5 parameters (0 required), and how to combine filters. Incomplete for a search tool.
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 only 20% (only 'agency' has a description). The description does not elaborate on any parameters, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone. No additional semantics beyond the schema are provided.
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 this tool searches e-Gov public-comment notices, a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling watch_search tools (e.g., bid_watch_search, grant_watch_search) by targeting a unique domain.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pubcom_watch_get or pubcom_watch_recent_changes. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
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.