WorkPick Press
Server Details
Verified Japanese company press releases with provenance (corporate number, source URL) and jobs.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct function: retrieving a single article by slug, listing all press for a company, and searching across all press. No overlap.
All tools follow the verb_noun pattern: get_press_article, list_company_press, search_press. Consistent and predictable.
Three tools is appropriate for a read-only press release server, covering both individual retrieval and search/listing.
The set provides complete coverage for accessing verified press releases: search, list by company, and get by slug. No obvious missing operations for its domain.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_press_articleプレス記事の全文を取得AInspect
slug 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） |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important conditional behavior: full body only for company-submitted articles, otherwise original link. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden and addresses the key behavioral aspect.
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?
Two sentences in Japanese and English, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Highly concise and structured.
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?
The description specifies output fields and the conditional full body handling, which is adequate for a simple retrieval tool. No output schema exists, so the description compensates well.
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 the slug parameter already described. The description adds a hint that the slug originates from search_press, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.
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 a single verified press article with summary, facts, jobs, and provenance. It distinguishes from siblings like list_company_press and search_press by focusing on one article identified by slug.
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 when to use (after obtaining a slug from search_press) but does not explicitly state when not to use or directly compare with siblings. However, the context is clear enough for proper selection.
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BInspect
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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, pagination, ordering, or behavior when no results or company not found. Only states it gets a list, which is minimal for a data retrieval 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, with two brief sentences in Japanese and English. It is front-loaded in Japanese but includes both languages. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.
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 list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for basic use. However, it lacks mention of pagination behavior (limit parameter) and response format. Not fully complete but sufficient.
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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool's description restates the parameter options but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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 lists all published press releases for a specific company, by name or corporate number. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource, and the title in Japanese reinforces this. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_press_article' (single article) and 'search_press' (broader 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 implies usage context (listing all press releases for one company) but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on when not to use or what to do if company is ambiguous.
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) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states results carry provenance for verification and lists categories. However, it does not disclose performance, rate limits, authentication, or whether the tool is read-only. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.
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 front-loaded with the main action and provides both Japanese and English text. It is informative but slightly redundant due to bilingualism. Generally concise and well-structured, earning a 4.
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 6 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: search functionality, provenance, and categories. It lacks details on return format, pagination, and ordering, but the provenance emphasis adds completeness for a search 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about corporate number resolution and category translations, but does not significantly elaborate beyond schema descriptions. The add value is marginal, meeting the baseline.
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 verified, structured press releases from Japanese companies, with corporate number and original source URL. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_press_article (single article) and list_company_press (company-specific listing) by emphasizing cross-company search with multiple filters.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. sibling tools. The description implies it is a general search tool, but does not contrast with get_press_article or list_company_press. Usage context is implicitly clear but lacks when-not or alternative recommendations.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!