Japan Public Ledgers MCP

freshness_subscribe

Subscribe a machine/AI pipeline to ledger-change notifications: when a matching record changes, a signed "stale" event (with an F-037 receipt proving the change) is POSTed to your callback_url so your RAG/index can re-index. Filters: ledger (optional), entity and/or topic (case-insensitive title substring). At least one filter is required. Body is HMAC-signed with your secret (X-Receipt-Signature). Backfill never fires. Price 0.0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`topic`	No	Additional case-insensitive substring
`entity`	No	Case-insensitive substring of the item title
`ledger`	No	Ledger key, e.g. 'sanction' (omit for all ledgers)
`secret`	Yes	Shared secret used to HMAC-sign the POST body
`callbackUrl`	Yes	HTTPS endpoint the stale event is POSTed to
`jurisdiction`	No	Jurisdiction code (default 'jp')

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the signed POST event, the F-037 receipt, and that backfill never fires. Price info is included. Lacks rate limits or retry behavior but covers core behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value (subscription, filters, signing, backfill, price). Could be slightly tightened but effective.

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 and 6 parameters, the description covers the essential use case, filter constraints, and security. It doesn't detail the response format, but for a subscription creation tool, it's sufficiently complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the combined filter requirement (at least one of entity/topic), HMAC signing, and callbackUrl's role. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 starts with 'Subscribe a machine/AI pipeline to ledger-change notifications', which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'freshness_list' and 'freshness_unsubscribe'.

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?

The description explains that at least one filter (entity/topic) is required, describes the signing mechanism, and notes that backfill never fires. It provides context for use without explicitly listing alternatives, which is adequate.

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?