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Superseded by the io.github.ogasurfproject-jpg/horizon-shield listing at https://mcp.horizonshield.dev, which is the URL published in the official MCP registry.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 JCCDB Dataset Info

get_jccdb_dataset_info

Read-only

日本の建設費オープンデータベース(JCCDB)のメタデータ・規模・ライセンス・ダウンロードリンク・引用情報を返す。建設費の一次データ源を探している時に使う。 / Returns metadata, scale, license, download links and citation for the Japan Construction Cost Database (JCCDB), an open dataset of 95,403 Japanese construction line items (v4.0: 43,090 verified + 52,313 extended). Use when looking for a primary construction-cost data source.

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.
`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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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 dataset version, size, verified vs. extended breakdown, and exactly which categories of information are returned. This gives the agent a solid expectation of what invoking the tool will surface.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it leads with the most important output facts, follows with scale/version details, and closes with the usage trigger. The bilingual version adds modest length but each half carries the same complete information without redundancy beyond the language requirement.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only metadata tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what data is returned, what the dataset contains, and when to use it. The output schema covers return structure, so no additional return-format explanation is required.

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, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none, and it instead clarifies the scope of the returned dataset.

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 opens with a specific verb ('returns') and names the exact deliverable set: metadata, scale, license, download links, and citation for the JCCDB. It identifies the resource unambiguously and grounds it with concrete dataset figures (95,403 items, v4.0 breakdown), making it easy to distinguish from generic financial-data 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?

The description states a clear usage context: 'Use when looking for a primary construction-cost data source.' It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but for a zero-parameter informational tool 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 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?