Japan Subsidy Search MCP
Server Details
Real-time search of Japanese government subsidies and grants (official jGrants data): deadlines, amounts, eligibility, filterable by prefecture.
- 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 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one searches for subsidies, the other retrieves details of a specific subsidy. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (search_subsidies, get_subsidy_detail), making the naming predictable and clear.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal for a search and detail retrieval system. While functional, it borders on too few tools for a well-scoped server.
The tools cover the core functionality of searching and viewing subsidy details. Minor gaps like keyword search or additional filters exist, but the essential workflow is supported.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_subsidy_detail補助金の詳細を取得AInspect
補助金IDを指定して、目的・応募資格・補助率・応募期間・問い合わせ先などの詳細情報を取得する。IDはsearch_subsidiesの結果に含まれる。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 補助金ID（例: a0WJ200000CDczHMAT） |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or potential errors. The description only explains the tool's function, which is insufficient for full transparency.
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 sentences. The first states the core functionality and outputs, the second provides usage context (ID source). No unnecessary 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is fully adequate. It explains what is retrieved, what inputs are needed, and how to obtain them.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id', including format and example. The description adds value by explaining where the ID comes from (search_subsidies), which is not in 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 verb '取得する' (get) and the resource '補助金の詳細' (subsidy details). It specifies the output fields (purpose, eligibility, etc.) and distinguishes from the sibling by noting the ID comes from search_subsidies.
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 explicitly mentions that the ID is obtained from search_subsidies, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools, but the sibling dependency is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_subsidies日本の補助金・助成金を検索AInspect
日本政府の公式データベース（jGrants）から補助金・助成金をリアルタイム検索する。募集中の案件を締切が近い順に返す。都道府県を指定すると、その地域限定の補助金と全国対象の補助金の両方を返す。各結果には申請ページURL・上限額・締切までの残り日数が含まれる。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | 検索キーワード（2文字以上。例: IT導入 / 省エネ / 創業 / 賃上げ / 観光） | |
| prefecture | No | 都道府県名で絞り込み（例: 東京都 / 大阪府）。省略時は全地域 | |
| max_results | No | 最大件数（1〜50） | |
| only_accepting | No | trueなら現在募集中の案件のみ（デフォルト）。falseで過去・予定分も含む |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses real-time search behavior, ordering by deadline, and response fields (URL, max amount, remaining days). It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the behavior is clearly non-destructive.
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 concise: three sentences in Japanese that front-load the action and source, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds meaningful detail.
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 four parameters, no output schema, and a sibling tool, the description covers the tool's purpose, filtering options, ordering, and return fields comprehensively. The agent has sufficient context to use the tool correctly.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that specifying a prefecture returns both local and national subsidies, and that results are ordered by deadline. This enriches the meaning of the parameters.
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 verb 'search' and resource 'subsidies from jGrants database,' and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_subsidy_detail' by focusing on listing multiple results ordered by deadline.
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 explains when to use this tool (to search for active subsidies) and how filtering by prefecture works. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or directly reference the sibling tool for details.
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!