realestate_watch_timeline
Time-ordered events only for a real-estate record (the differentiator: when it appeared / was revised). Includes firstSeenAt and ledgerVerified.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes |
Japan Public Ledgers MCP
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns time-ordered events and includes specific fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified), but omits behavioral details such as pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. This is adequate but not thorough.
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 a single sentence with two clauses, efficiently conveying the core purpose and key differentiators. While it is not highly structured, it avoids verbosity and remains easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description partially explains return data (time-ordered events, specific fields). However, it does not mention whether events are paginated, how they are sorted, or any limits. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is minimally complete but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter (itemId) has 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explicitly explain what itemId represents or provide any additional semantic meaning beyond the implied 'identifier for the real-estate record'. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool provides 'time-ordered events' for a real-estate record, specifying the differentiator ('when it appeared / was revised') and mentioning included fields (firstSeenAt, ledgerVerified). This distinguishes it from sibling timeline tools by domain and from other realestate_watch tools by function.
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 retrieving the timeline/history of a record but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like realestate_watch_get, realestate_watch_recent_changes, or other timeline tools. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.