HORIZON SHIELD

This connector has been deprecated

Superseded by the io.github.ogasurfproject-jpg/horizon-shield listing at https://mcp.horizonshield.dev, which is the URL published in the official MCP registry. The endpoint behind this listing is the same server and stays reachable.

Get A2A Agent Card

get_agent_card

Read-only

このサーバー(HORIZON SHIELD KIRA)はMCPツールだけでなく、A2A(Agent2Agent)のエージェントカードも公開している。外部のA2A対応エージェントから発見・連携したい場合の、エージェントカードURLと公開スキルの一覧を返す。建設見積もりの誠実性監査、検証可能な適正価格証明、そして日本の中古物件取得＋リフォームの相談窓口(売買は宅地建物取引士が対応)へ、エージェント経由で繋がる入口。 / Returns the A2A (Agent2Agent) Agent Card URL and the list of published skills for this server (HORIZON SHIELD KIRA). Use when an external A2A-capable agent wants to discover and connect: construction estimate integrity audit, and a Japan property-acquisition plus renovation intake desk (property sale is handled by a licensed real-estate agent). This is how agents reach the desk over A2A.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	How many records matched. 0 means the source was read and nothing matched. It never means the source could not be read, that returns isError: true.
`lookup`	No	ok = the source was read and something matched. absent = the source was read and nothing matched. A source that could NOT be read never appears here: that returns isError: true and makes no claim about what does or does not exist.
`skills`	No	公開スキル配列
`source_read`	No	true on every successful result. A failed lookup does not return a result at all, so this is never false, it is declared so a consumer can assert on it.
`did_you_mean`	No	Near matches, when an exact match was not found.
`agent_card_url`	No	エージェントカードURL

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool returns an AgentCard URL and a skill list, and clarifies the boundaries of related services (e.g., property sale is handled by a licensed real-estate agent). This exceeds the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the key purpose but is written in both Japanese and English, duplicating the same content. This lengthens it unnecessarily, though the structure is clear and information is presented in a logical order.

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?

The description provides enough context about what the tool returns and when to use it, and there is an output schema so return value details are not required. It could be slightly tighter, but it is complete for its narrow discovery purpose and includes additional useful context on related services.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of them (none). With no parameters to describe, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics.

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 returns the A2A Agent Card URL and the list of published skills, with a specific verb ('get'/'返す') and a distinct resource (the server's A2A agent card). It is distinct from sibling tools that audit estimates and check red flags, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool when an external A2A-capable agent wants to discover and connect to this server. It provides context for when it applies without giving formal 'when-not-to-use' exclusions, but that is sufficient given the tool's narrow, discovery-focused role.

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

All HORIZON SHIELD 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes: audit_estimate for detailed quote diagnosis, get_price_range for typical ranges, preview_reverse_estimate for early-stage direction, verify_fair_price for tamper-evident records. However, audit_estimate, get_price_range, and preview_reverse_estimate overlap in the price-checking domain, and verify_fair_price vs verify_integrity_claim could be confused (both involve SHA-256 verification), though descriptions clarify the opposite postures.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (audit_estimate, check_red_flags, get_price_range, list_cost_categories, search_cost_category, suggest_ehn, verify_fair_price). Minor deviations: create_ap2_fairness_attestation is longer and more specific, and get_agent_card/get_estimate_reading_guide/get_fair_price_sources/get_jccdb_dataset_info all start with 'get' but vary in noun phrasing. Overall consistent and predictable.

Tool Count4/5

14 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range, and each tool serves a distinct function in the domain of construction estimate auditing and fair-price verification. Slightly on the higher end but justified by the breadth of features (price lookup, audit, attestation, verification, data sources, educational guides).

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core workflow: lookup price ranges, audit specific quotes, check red flags, generate attestations, verify claims, and access data sources. Minor gaps: no tool for submitting new price data or updating categories, and no direct tool for comparing multiple quotes side-by-side, but agents can work around these with existing tools.

Resources

Need Help?