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 carries full burden. It mentions returned fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified) but does not describe pagination, default limit, query syntax, or read-only nature. It omits behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope. It is concise and logically ordered. However, the second sentence about hit fields could be integrated more naturally.
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 is incomplete. It does not explain query syntax, status meanings, time filtering with since, or result ordering. There is a potential inconsistency: issuerCode hints at local use but description says stage 1 is national only.
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?
The description does not add meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 57%, with descriptions for query, issuerCode, jurisdiction, and ordinanceType. The description adds nothing about parameters, missing an opportunity to explain query syntax or parameter relationships.
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, specifies the data source (e-Gov 法令検索 v2), and distinguishes from siblings by indicating it is a search tool and noting Stage 1 covers only national level. The sibling tools include get, changes, timeline, and verify, which are different operations.
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 provides context about scope (national only) and hints at future support for local ordinances, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ordinance_watch_get. It lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.