sanction_watch_timeline
Time-ordered events only for a sanction (the differentiator: when it appeared and when it was lifted). Includes 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 must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool includes 'firstSeenAt' and 'ledgerVerified' and is time-ordered, but it does not clarify if the operation is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, or what the response format is. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or security context.
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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with key terms. However, it could be structured more clearly by separating the purpose from the included fields. The brevity is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should cover return value structure and event types. It only mentions 'firstSeenAt' and 'ledgerVerified', leaving ambiguity about other possible event fields. The one-parameter tool is simple, but the description is too sparse for reliable agent invocation.
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 only parameter 'itemId' is a bare string in the schema with no description. The description also omits any explanation of what itemId represents (e.g., a sanction ID from a search) or its format. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to add any meaning to the parameter.
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 defines the tool as returning time-ordered events for a single sanction, specifically events related to when it appeared and was lifted. It distinguishes from sibling timeline tools (e.g., bid_watch_timeline) by focusing on sanction-specific events.
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 it is for obtaining chronological event data for a sanction, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this versus related tools like sanction_watch_get or sanction_watch_search. The phrase 'the differentiator' hints at uniqueness but lacks direct guidance on alternatives.
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.