Japan Official Statistics MCP
Server Details
25,000+ official Japanese government statistical tables (population, prices, wages, industry) via e-Stat, with dimension codes resolved to readable labels.
- 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 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_statistics finds tables, get_statistics_data retrieves data. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: search_statistics and get_statistics_data.
Two tools is thin for a broad domain like official statistics; missing browse or metadata retrieval, but the minimal workflow is covered.
The core search-to-retrieve workflow is complete, but lacks features like listing categories or filtering without search, leaving minor gaps.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_statistics_data統計データの実数値を取得（e-Stat）AInspect
統計表ID（stats_data_id）を指定して、実際の統計数値を分類名・時点・単位付きで取得する。IDはsearch_statisticsの結果に含まれる。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_values | No | 取得する値の最大数（1〜100） | |
| stats_data_id | Yes | 統計表ID（例: 0000150041） |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output (values with classification, time point, unit) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only. For a simple data retrieval tool, the description is adequate but not highly informative.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and output details. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Considering no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, source of the ID, and output fields. It lacks details on response structure or potential errors, but it is fairly complete for a data retrieval tool with two parameters.
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?
Both parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that the ID comes from search_statistics and that the output includes classification name, time point, and unit, which enriches 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 specific action: get actual statistical values using a stats_data_id. It also mentions the values include classification name, time point, and unit, and that the ID comes from search_statistics, distinguishing it from its sibling.
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 implicitly tells when to use the tool: after obtaining the ID from search_statistics. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear given the single sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_statistics政府統計を検索（e-Stat）AInspect
日本政府の統計ポータルe-Statから統計表を検索する（人口・物価・賃金・産業・家計など全省庁の公式統計）。結果のstats_data_idをget_statistics_dataに渡すと実データを取得できる。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | 検索語（例: 人口推計 / 消費者物価指数 / 賃金） | |
| max_results | No | 最大件数 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the search action and the returned ID, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. Lacks explicit behavioral details.
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 concise and informative sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word adds value, no fluff.
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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the flow to get data via sibling. Missing details about return structure, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra value (e.g., example keywords), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.
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 for statistical tables from e-Stat, mentions specific categories (population, prices, etc.), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_statistics_data by noting that the returned ID is used for data retrieval.
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?
Explicitly states the result stats_data_id should be passed to get_statistics_data for actual data, providing a clear alternative. Does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough to guide appropriate usage.
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!