Japan Public Ledgers MCP

kyb_report

Turn a company/entity name into a structured English KYB / due-diligence report for foreign-inbound buyers. Aggregates cross-ledger hits (administrative sanctions, licenses, public bids, recalls, etc.) via entity_search, summarizes them (counts + deterministic risk_flags), and attaches an F-037 provenance receipt to EACH hit so the screening is auditable. No model-invented facts: every asserted fact originates from a ledger hit and carries a receipt. Informational only; not legal advice. Price 0.0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Company / entity name (partial match across all ledgers)
`jurisdiction`	No	Jurisdiction code (default 'jp')

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that facts are ledger-sourced with provenance receipts, no model-invented facts, and that it's not legal advice. It does not mention read-only behavior or rate limits, but the report generation context implies safety.

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?

The description is concise (4 sentences) with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, method, integrity guarantee, disclaimer, and pricing. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 adequately describes the output as a structured report with counts, risk_flags, and provenance receipts. It misses details on output format but covers the essential behavioral aspects.

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 context about cross-ledger hits and partial matching, enhancing understanding beyond schema defaults. It also implies the jurisdiction parameter's relevance.

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 the tool converts a company/entity name into a structured KYB report, specifying the use case (foreign-inbound buyers), and distinguishes from sibling tools like entity_search or sanctions_screen_entity by emphasizing the aggregated cross-ledger nature.

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 implies usage for aggregated due-diligence, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it compared to specific watch tools. However, the context of foreign-inbound buyers provides clear situational guidance.

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?