realestate_watch_get
Get a real-estate transaction record detail plus full event timeline. Returns firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes |
Japan Public Ledgers MCP
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that the tool is a read operation ('Get') and specific return fields, but does not disclose important behavioral details such as required authentication, potential rate limits, data freshness, or whether the timeline is paginated or truncated.
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 concise—two sentences with the purpose front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative about the parameter without becoming verbose, so a 4 is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and rich sibling tools, the description should provide more context. It mentions return fields but does not describe the structure of the 'full event timeline' or any constraints (e.g., pagination). The lack of parameter explanation further reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (itemId) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not add any meaning to this parameter; it does not explain what itemId represents, its format, or how to obtain a valid ID. This leaves the agent without sufficient information to correctly invoke the tool.
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's purpose: 'Get a real-estate transaction record detail plus full event timeline.' It also specifies return fields (firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified), distinguishing it from siblings like realestate_watch_search (which likely returns lists) and realestate_watch_timeline (which may only return timeline).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it is used to retrieve a specific record by itemId, but does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or situations where other tools (like realestate_watch_search) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
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.