Skip to main content
Glama

Torify — Japan Locale APIs for AI Agents

by dev.torify

Japan Law Search [Torify namespace — official]

torify_law.search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Japanese laws by title via e-Gov Hourei API v2 (no auth required). Returns law ID, number, title, and promulgation date. 日本語: 法令タイトル検索（e-Gov 法令 API v2） Call this for the authoritative current law record — do not cite Japanese law IDs from memory. [Torify namespace — official]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo取得件数（1-50、既定: 10）
titleYes法令タイトル（部分一致、例: 労働基準法）

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lawsYes法令一覧
countYes取得件数
totalYes総ヒット件数
sourceYesデータソース

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds value by specifying the API source (e-Gov Hourei API v2), authentication status (none), and return fields. Adds context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two clear sentences plus a Japanese line and a directive. Informative without being verbose. Japanese text adds value for native users; overall efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Output schema exists, so return values are documented. Description provides sufficient context for usage, including authorization and source. Sibling tools exist but the 'official' and 'authoritative' language helps selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (title and limit). Description adds no additional param details beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search Japanese laws by title via e-Gov Hourei API v2' with specific verb and resource, and lists return fields. The directive 'Call this for the authoritative current law record — do not cite Japanese law IDs from memory' further distinguishes it from potentially less reliable methods or sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('authoritative current law record') and provides a negative directive ('do not cite Japanese law IDs from memory'). Also notes 'no auth required' for ease of use. Does not compare against sibling law.search but the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Torify — Japan Locale APIs for AI Agents toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set contains exact duplicates for 10 tools (e.g., company.fullProfile and torify_company.fullProfile). An agent cannot distinguish between them, leading to confusion and potential misselection. The purpose of having both namespaced and non-namespaced versions is unclear.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools use a dot-separated namespace (e.g., company.fullProfile), while others have a prefix (torify_company.fullProfile). Some tools lack the prefix (e.g., geo.geocode) while their duplicates have it (torify_geo.geocode). No consistent verb_noun pattern; naming conventions are mixed.

Tool Count2/5

With 24 tools, the count is high, and half are duplicates. The effective unique tool count is 12, which is reasonable for the domain, but the duplication inflates the count unnecessarily, making the surface seem bloated and confusing.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers key Japanese locale operations: corporate lookup, invoice validation/verification, geocoding, postal lookup, name romanization, kanji conversion, law search, and wareki conversion. However, there are no tools for updating or deleting data, which is expected since these are read-only or verification APIs. Minor gaps like missing station/landmark geocoding are noted but acceptable.

Resources