Japan Public Ledgers MCP

temporal_query

Reconstruct what a ledger item (or items matching a query) officially said AS OF a past date T, by replaying the kept event history. Returns each item's point-in-time state plus an F-037 provenance receipt (observed_at = the state's effective time). existence:false with a first_seen receipt when the item did not yet exist at T; latest state with as_of_clamped:false when T is in the future. Read-only; price 0.0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`as_of`	Yes	ISO-8601 point in time T.
`query`	No	Title substring to reconstruct every matching item (capped at 25). Use instead of item_id.
`ledger`	Yes	Ledger key (e.g. 'sanction', 'license', 'subsidy', 'recall', 'pharma', 'bid', 'grant', 'pubcom', 'ordinance', 'tos', 'realestate', 'landprice').
`item_id`	No	Stable item id (single-item reconstruction).
`jurisdiction`	No	Jurisdiction code (default 'jp').

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: replaying event history, handling future T (as_of_clamped), non-existent items (existence:false), and return of provenance receipt. Also declares read-only and price 0.

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?

Description is concise with 4 sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all key aspects: behavior for past, future, and non-existent items, return format, and cost. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 value by explaining the 'query' parameter's behavior (title substring capped at 25) and the overall interaction with parameters like as_of and item_id, enhancing understanding beyond schema.

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 reconstructs historical state of ledger items as of a past date, with specific verb 'reconstruct' and resource 'ledger item'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on temporal query.

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?

Provides context on when to use (historical reconstruction), mentions alternatives within the description ('Use instead of item_id'), and notes read-only nature and zero cost. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but is generally clear.

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?