Japan Parliament Search MCP
Server Details
Search Japan's National Diet records (1947-present): ministerial statements, committee Q&A, and policy debates with speaker, party, and citation URLs.
- 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 4.4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one searches for meetings, the other for speeches within meetings. The descriptions explicitly differentiate them, so an agent can easily select the correct tool.
Both tools follow a consistent 'search_' prefix followed by a noun (search_meetings and search_speeches), maintaining a predictable pattern.
With only two tools, the set is minimal but well-scoped for the domain of searching parliamentary records. Each tool serves a distinct and essential function, though a few more tools (e.g., for listing committees or getting meeting details) could enhance completeness.
The tools cover the core use cases: searching for meetings and searching for speeches within them. The speech search supports full text retrieval. However, there are minor gaps such as lacking a tool to retrieve a full meeting transcript or to filter by specific committees without searching.
Available Tools
2 toolssearch_meetings国会の会議（委員会・本会議）を検索AInspect
キーワードを含む国会の会議（本会議・委員会）単位で検索する。どの委員会でいつ議論されたかの全体像を掴むのに使う。個別の発言内容はsearch_speechesで取得する。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | 開始日 YYYY-MM-DD | |
| house | No | 院で絞り込み | |
| query | Yes | 検索語（例: 生成AI / 補助金） | |
| until | No | 終了日 YYYY-MM-DD | |
| max_results | No | 最大件数（1〜10） |
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 discloses that the tool searches at the meeting level and references the sibling for deeper detail. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or exact return format, but the behavior is reasonably transparent for a search tool.
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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage context and sibling differentiation. Information is front-loaded and efficient.
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 no output schema, the description clarifies the output is meeting-level results and points to the sibling for speech details. It does not enumerate return fields, but for a search tool with well-described parameters this is sufficient.
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%, meeting the baseline. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema descriptions; it only repeats the example search terms already in schema. Hence, no added value.
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 parliamentary meetings by keyword, explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tool search_speeches by stating it provides an overview of committee discussions and referring individual speech content to the 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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('to grasp the overall picture of which committee discussed what and when') and when not ('individual speech content should be retrieved with search_speeches'). This provides clear usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_speeches国会答弁・発言を検索AInspect
日本の国会会議録（1947年〜最新）から発言を全文検索する。大臣答弁・質疑・政府見解の一次資料を、発言者・院・会議名・期間で絞り込める。政策調査・報道・ロビイング・コンプライアンス確認に有用。デフォルトは発言の冒頭抜粋を返す。full_text=trueで発言全文を取得（長い場合がある）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | 開始日 YYYY-MM-DD | |
| house | No | 院で絞り込み | |
| query | Yes | 検索語（例: 生成AI / インボイス / 防衛費） | |
| until | No | 終了日 YYYY-MM-DD | |
| meeting | No | 会議名で絞り込み（例: 予算委員会） | |
| speaker | No | 発言者名で絞り込み（例: 岸田文雄） | |
| full_text | No | trueで発言全文を返す（既定は400字抜粋） | |
| max_results | No | 最大件数（1〜10） |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains default behavior (returns excerpt), how to get full text (full_text=true), and warns that full text may be long. This is good transparency for a search tool, though rate limits or authentication are not mentioned.
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 well-structured: front-loaded with core purpose, then filtering options, use cases, and default behavior. Every sentence adds useful information without 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 8 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, defaults, and use cases. It does not explain return format beyond excerpt vs full text or error handling, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use 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 by explaining default excerpt behavior, the effect of full_text, and warning about potentially long full text. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.
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 full text of Japanese Diet speeches from 1947 to present, specifying the resource and verb. It lists filtering options (speaker, house, meeting, date range) and distinguishes from sibling tool search_meetings by focusing on speeches rather than meetings.
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 use cases (policy research, journalism, lobbying, compliance) but does not explicitly state when not to use or direct to alternatives. The sibling tool search_meetings is implied for meeting-level search, but no explicit exclusion 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!