Japan Public Ledgers MCP

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

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains behavior beyond schema: returns hits grouped per ledger with fields (matchedField, summary, detailUrl, ledgerVerified) and clarifies ledgerVerified's meaning (proves record integrity, not data truth). No contradictions.

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 wasted words. First sentence front-loads purpose and scope; second sentence clarifies ledgerVerified. 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return structure (grouped per ledger with fields). It lacks mention of pagination or total limits across ledgers, but overall is quite complete for a search tool.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). Description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema provides; baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it searches a company/person name across ALL listed ledgers, distinguishing it from sibling tools that search within a single ledger (e.g., sanctions_watch_search). The verb 'search' and resource 'all ledgers' are specific.

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?

The description implies usage for broad cross-ledger searches but does not explicitly state when to use this over a ledger-specific search tool. No 'when-not' or alternatives are named.

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

All Japan Public Ledgers MCP 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

B3/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the ledger-watch groups with domain prefixes. However, there are near-duplicate utilities such as content_authenticity_domain_reputation and domain_intel_reputation, and fx_tax_convert overlaps with price_oracle_fx_rate/convert. The sheer number of tools also increases the chance of selecting the wrong one, though descriptions are generally clear.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is largely consistent with a <domain>_<action> or <domain>_<watch>_<action> pattern, and all names use snake_case. Minor deviations include standalone names like entity_search, kyb_report, verify_receipt, and the confusing singular/plural pair of sanction_watch_* and sanctions_screen_*. Overall, the pattern is predictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 172 tools, this server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range. It bundles dozens of unrelated utility domains (weather, carbon, CVE, geo, etc.) alongside the Japan public-ledger watches, making it unwieldy for an agent to navigate. This extreme count is a major coherence problem.

Completeness4/5

For the core Japan public-ledger domain, coverage is excellent: each ledger has search, get, timeline, recent_changes, and verify_ledger, plus cross-ledger entity_search and temporal_query. The unrelated utility areas are also fairly complete for their own purposes, but the server's scope is so broad that some utilities are duplicated (e.g., multiple currency converters). Overall, no critical dead ends in the main domain.

Resources

Need Help?