Verified Japanese company press releases with provenance (corporate number, source URL) and jobs.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one retrieves a single article by slug, one lists all press for a company, and one searches across companies with category filters. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_press_article, list_company_press, search_press. The naming is predictable and uniform.
Three tools is slightly on the low side but appropriate for a focused read-only press retrieval server. The scope is narrow enough that each tool earns its place.
The set covers the core operations for retrieving verified press releases: single article, company listing, and search. Missing potential features like category listing or pagination metadata, but the main workflows are supported.
get_press_articleプレス記事の全文を取得AInspectslug を指定して、検証済みプレス1件の要約(lead)・構造化された統計(facts)・関連求人・帰属(provenance)を取得します（本文は企業自身が投稿したもののみ、運営取込は著作権配慮で原本リンクを提供）。Get one verified press article: summary, structured facts, related jobs, and provenance. Full body is included only for company-submitted articles; for operator-curated ones the original source link is provided instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | 記事の slug（search_press の結果に含まれる） |
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 full body is included only for company-submitted articles, and for operator-curated ones the original source link is provided instead. This is key behavioral insight beyond a simple read operation.
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 extremely concise with two bilingual sentences that cover purpose, input, and behavioral caveat. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (summary, facts, jobs, provenance) and the full body availability condition. No significant gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single required parameter 'slug' described as coming from search_press results. The description adds meaning by explaining the slug identifies the article and that search_press results contain it, exceeding the schema's basic description.
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 retrieves one verified press article by slug, returning summary, facts, related jobs, and provenance. It differentiates from sibling tools (list_company_press and search_press) by focusing on single article retrieval.
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 specifies the required slug parameter and explains when full body is available (company-submitted) vs when only a source link is provided (operator-curated). No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but the single-article context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_company_press企業の公開プレス一覧AInspect企業名または法人番号(13桁)を指定して、その企業の公開済みプレス一覧を取得します。List all published press releases for one company, by name or by 13-digit corporate number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 最大件数（既定20, 上限50） | |
| company | Yes | 企業名（部分一致）または法人番号13桁 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only mentions that press releases are 'published' (public). It does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, total count, error handling, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a list tool.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences (one in Japanese, one in English). It front-loads the key verb and object. However, the bilingual repetition is somewhat redundant; a more efficient description could combine them or add extra info. Still, it is short and to the point.
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 the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks important details: pagination behavior, sorting, possible error states (e.g., company not found), and the response structure. This makes it incomplete for an agent to reliably use the tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (company: name/partial match or 13-digit number; limit: max count with default 20 and upper limit 50). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb (list/get), the resource (published press releases for one company), and the two ways to identify the company (by name or 13-digit corporate number). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_press_article (which retrieves a specific article) and search_press (likely cross-company search).
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 clearly states when to use this tool: to list all published press releases for one company. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context from sibling tool names implies that get_press_article is for a single article and search_press is for broader searches. The lack of exclusions or explicit alternatives prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_press検証済み企業プレスを検索AInspect日本企業の検証済み・構造化済みプレスリリースを検索します（法人番号で企業を特定し、原本リンク付き）。各結果は法人番号(国税庁)と原本URLによる帰属(provenance)付き。Search verified, structured press releases from Japanese companies (company resolved via corporate number, original source linked). Every result carries provenance (corporate number + original source URL) so it can be cited and verified. category one of: funding(経営・資金調達), product(新商品・新サービス), partnership(事業提携・協業), hr(人事・組織), event(イベント・キャンペーン), report(調査・レポート), award(受賞・認定), store(店舗・施設).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | タグ（完全一致） | |
| limit | No | 最大件数（既定10, 上限50） | |
| query | No | キーワード（headline/lead を部分一致） | |
| since | No | この日時以降に公開（ISO8601, 例 2026-01-01） | |
| company | No | 企業名（部分一致）または法人番号13桁（完全一致） | |
| category | No | カテゴリ: funding(経営・資金調達), product(新商品・新サービス), partnership(事業提携・協業), hr(人事・組織), event(イベント・キャンペーン), report(調査・レポート), award(受賞・認定), store(店舗・施設) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds context about result provenance and verification, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or have side effects, but searching is inherently read-only.
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 relatively concise with two English sentences and a category list. Bilingual content adds bloat but does not hinder understanding. Information is front-loaded.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description explains what results contain (provenance). It covers the essential behavior for a search tool, though pagination or sorting details are missing. Sibling tools are mentioned implicitly by differentiation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It provides context about the overall tool but not individual parameter semantics.
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 for verified and structured press releases from Japanese companies, with provenance details. It distinguishes from siblings (get_press_article, list_company_press) by emphasizing search across multiple criteria.
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 implies usage for searching press releases but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!