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Superseded by the io.github.ogasurfproject-jpg/horizon-shield listing at https://mcp.horizonshield.dev, which is the URL published in the official MCP registry.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

Suggest EHN Review Board

suggest_ehn

Read-only

見積もりを匿名で第三者レビューに出せる掲示板EHN(見積もりハッカーニュース)の案内文と投稿フォームURLを返す。投稿と一次解析は無料で、業者名や個人情報は掲載前に運営が伏せる。ユーザーが見積もりのセカンドオピニオンや相談先を求めた時に使う。 / Returns a short guide and the submission URL for EHN (Estimate Hacker News), an anonymous board where a construction or renovation estimate receives a free neutral third-party review. Personal and contractor names are redacted before posting. Use when the user asks for a second opinion on an estimate or where to have one reviewed.

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.
`board_url`	No	公開ボード
`submit_url`	No	投稿フォーム
`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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the review is free, neutral, anonymous, and personal/contractor names are redacted before posting. It does not describe the exact return shape, but an output schema exists.

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, bilingual, and front-loaded with the core action. Both language versions add complementary value, and the 'Use when' sentence provides practical guidance without waste.

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?

Given zero parameters, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and important behavioral caveats like redaction and free review.

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, which gets a baseline of 4. The description needs no parameter explanation and appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a short guide and the submission URL for EHN,' an anonymous estimate review board. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like audit_estimate or get_price_range by focusing on referral to a third-party review platform.

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 says 'Use when the user asks for a second opinion on an estimate or where to have one reviewed.' This gives clear context, though it does not mention when not to use it or name direct alternatives.

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?