Japan Address & Geocoding MCP
Server Details
Japanese zipcode lookup, geocoding, and reverse geocoding — official GSI and postal data. No API key needed.
- 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 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a unique, non-overlapping purpose: geocode_address converts text to coordinates, reverse_geocode does the opposite, and zipcode_to_address converts postal codes. There is no ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive verbs or nouns, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With three tools, the server covers the core functionalities for Japanese address and geocoding operations without being too sparse or cluttered.
The tool set provides forward geocoding, reverse geocoding, and postal code lookup, which are the essential operations for this domain. No obvious gaps are present.
Available Tools
3 toolsgeocode_address住所から緯度経度を取得（ジオコーディング）AInspect
日本の住所文字列から緯度経度と正規化された住所表記を取得する（国土地理院公式）。地図表示・距離計算・配送エリア判定などに使う。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | 住所（例: 東京都千代田区丸の内1-9-1） | |
| 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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It notes the official source but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or behavior when the address is not found. The disclosure is adequate but could be more 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 a single sentence that conveys purpose and use cases efficiently. There is no extraneous information, though a more structured format could improve scannability.
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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input, output, official source, and example use cases. It lacks explicit return format details, but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently 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 description only adds marginal value (e.g., example address, mention of max_results default). The description does not significantly enhance 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?
Description clearly states the tool converts Japanese address strings to latitude/longitude and normalized address, using official Geospatial Information Authority of Japan. It differentiates from siblings (reverse_geocode, zipcode_to_address) by its direction and data type.
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?
Description provides concrete use cases (map display, distance calculation, delivery area determination), which helps the agent understand context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reverse_geocode緯度経度から住所を取得（逆ジオコーディング）BInspect
緯度経度から日本の住所（都道府県・市区町村・町丁目）を取得する（国土地理院公式）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | 緯度（例: 35.681236） | |
| longitude | Yes | 経度（例: 139.767125） |
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 mentions the official source (国土地理院公式) but lacks behavioral details such as whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, data freshness, or if it requires permissions. For a reverse geocode tool, this is minimal.
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?
Single sentence, efficient and to the point. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly improved by front-loading the purpose more explicitly, but it is clear.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the function. However, it does not describe the return format or any constraints (e.g., coordinate accuracy). Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is reasonable.
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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 that the tool retrieves a Japanese address from latitude/longitude, using specific verb '取得する' and resource '日本の住所'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (forward geocoding and zip code lookup) by specifying reverse geocoding.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone. Adding an example or mention of limitations (e.g., only works within Japan) would help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
zipcode_to_address郵便番号から住所を取得AInspect
日本の郵便番号（7桁）から住所（都道府県・市区町村・町域、ふりがな付き）を取得する。フォーム入力支援・住所データクレンジングに使う。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zipcode | Yes | 郵便番号（例: 100-0001 または 1000001） |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, data source, freshness, or whether an internet connection is required. Only the core function is described.
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 concise sentence with an appended use-case note. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the primary action and result.
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 single-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the input, output (address with furigana), and use cases. Lacks some behavioral context (e.g., data source, reliability) but is largely complete for its 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'zipcode', which already includes pattern and example. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond emphasizing '7-digit', so value added is minimal. 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 tool retrieves a Japanese address (with furigana) from a 7-digit zipcode, and explicitly lists use cases (form input support, data cleansing). This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like geocode_address and reverse_geocode.
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 mentions two use cases (form input, data cleansing) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives. It is implied that this is for zipcode-to-address conversion, while geocode_address and reverse_geocode handle different inputs, but no direct guidance is given.
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!