Japan Real Estate Price MCP
Server Details
Actual real estate transaction prices and official land price data by prefecture/municipality/year, from Japan's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism.
- 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 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_land_price for official land prices, list_municipalities for retrieving municipality codes, and search_transactions for actual transaction prices. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: get_land_price, list_municipalities, search_transactions. This makes the API predictable and easy to navigate.
With exactly 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing Japanese real estate price data. Each tool addresses a distinct need without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
The tool set covers the two main types of real estate pricing data (official land prices and transaction prices) and provides a utility to look up municipality codes. A minor gap is the lack of a prefecture listing tool, but prefecture names are assumed known, so the surface is nearly complete.
Available Tools
3 toolsget_land_price地価公示・地価調査価格を取得BInspect
指定した都道府県・市区町村の地価公示価格（毎年1月1日時点の公的な土地評価額、いわゆる公示地価）を取得する。実勢の取引価格より安定した「公的基準地価」を知りたい場合に使う。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | 公示年（例: 2025） | |
| city_code | Yes | 市区町村コード5桁（list_municipalitiesで取得） | |
| prefecture | Yes | 都道府県名（例: 東京都） | |
| 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 must convey behavioral traits. It describes the data source (public assessment as of Jan 1) and implies a read operation, but does not disclose rate limits, required permissions, or if the operation is safe. The lack of explicit read-only or destructive hint is a gap.
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 a single sentence in Japanese, front-loading the core functionality with specific verb and resource. It is concise and efficient, though a bit dense.
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?
The tool has no output schema and 4 parameters, but the description does not explain the return format, pagination, or expected data structure. For a list-returning tool, this omission makes it incomplete for an agent to understand what to expect.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The main description adds only the data source context (official land prices) but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Hence baseline 3.
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 retrieves official public land prices (公示価格) for specified prefecture, city, and year, distinguishing it from real transaction prices. It mentions it's for those wanting stable official prices, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tool search_transactions, so lacking full differentiation.
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 gives a use case ('when you want official benchmark land prices') and hints at a prerequisite (list_municipalities for city_code). However, it does not specify when not to use this tool, nor does it provide explicit alternatives beyond implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_municipalities都道府県内の市区町村コード一覧を取得AInspect
都道府県名を指定して、その中の市区町村コード一覧を取得する。取引価格検索（search_transactions）に必要なcity codeの調べ物に使う。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefecture | Yes | 都道府県名（例: 東京都） |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic function without disclosing read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the action and then provide context. Every word is essential, no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and use case. It could mention the output format for completeness, but as a standalone lookup tool it is adequately complete.
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?
The single parameter is fully described in the schema (coverage 100%). The description adds context about its usage (for search_transactions), but does not enhance the semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'get' and resource 'list of municipality codes within a prefecture'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting its use for looking up city codes needed for search_transactions, making its purpose unique and specific.
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 provides clear context by stating that this tool is used to obtain city codes required for search_transactions. However, it does not include explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance for the other sibling tools, which is acceptable given its straightforward purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_transactions不動産取引価格を検索AInspect
国土交通省の不動産取引価格情報（実際に成約した価格）を検索する。都道府県・市区町村・四半期を指定。市区町村コードが不明な場合はlist_municipalitiesで調べる。土地・戸建て・マンション等の実取引価格を含む、地価公示より生々しい相場データ。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | 取引年（例: 2025） | |
| quarter | No | 四半期（1〜4）。省略時は年間全体 | |
| city_code | No | 市区町村コード5桁（list_municipalitiesで取得。省略時は都道府県全体） | |
| prefecture | Yes | 都道府県名（例: 東京都） | |
| max_results | No | 最大件数（1〜100） |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover safety and behavior. It mentions the data source and nature (actual transaction prices, more vivid), but lacks details on auth, rate limits, pagination, or result format. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 very concise, with three sentences that front-load the main purpose and then provide additional context. No wasted words.
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?
With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description could explain return values or pagination. It mentions sibling tools but lacks details on result format. Adequate but not fully complete.
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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds context about city_code lookup but does not add new parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 resource (real estate transaction prices from the Ministry of Land), the verb (search), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_land_price by highlighting it includes actual contract prices.
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 specifies when to use list_municipalities for city code lookup, and contrasts the data with official land prices, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.
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!