Japan, Korea and UK official data for AI agents: filings, FX, weather, travel, patents, AI tools.
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.
Average 2.9/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored. Lowest: 2/5.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the inclusion of a meta-catalog (jp_data_api_catalog) that lists endpoints overlapping with other tools (e.g., jp_filings_list) creates potential confusion. Also, the mix of Japan-specific tools and a generic world city guide blurs focus.
Naming is inconsistent: free tools use 'japan_' prefix, paid tools use 'jp_', and one tool uses 'anime_' and another 'world_'. No uniform pattern across the set.
13 tools is a reasonable count for a data API server, offering a variety of endpoints without being overwhelming. The number is appropriate for the scope.
The server claims to be 'JP Data' but includes general tools like world_city_guide and memory operations. Moreover, the catalog lists 29 paid endpoints but only a few are implemented as tools, leaving significant gaps in the advertised functionality.
anime_pilgrimageCInspectReal-world locations featured in popular anime (seichi junrei).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No |
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 only states the subject matter, not what the tool does, its limitations, or output format. This lack of transparency leaves the agent uninformed.
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, but at the cost of completeness. While short, it under-specifies the tool's functionality and does not effectively earn its place.
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 one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient to guide correct usage. It lacks essential details about input, output, and behavior.
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 parameter 'q' has no schema description, and the tool description does not explain its purpose. With 0% schema coverage, the agent has no idea what input is expected, making the tool unusable.
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 indicates the tool provides real-world locations from anime (seichi junrei), but lacks a verb to specify whether it searches, lists, or retrieves details. The term 'seichi junrei' offers some clarity, but the purpose is not fully defined.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to siblings like japan_events or world_city_guide. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
japan_eventsCInspectJapanese festivals and annual events by month (1-12).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions filtering by month but does not specify whether events are historical, current, or future, nor the output format or any side effects.
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 with no unnecessary words. Efficient, though could include more details without being verbose.
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 and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not describe return values, handling of invalid months, or any special behavior. Inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.
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 0% (no description for the parameter). Description adds that the tool organizes by month but does not specify acceptable month formats (e.g., numeric vs. name) or validate range. Insufficient compensation for the lack of schema 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?
Description clearly states it lists Japanese festivals and annual events by month (1-12), specifying the resource and the selection criterion. It distinguishes from sibling tools like anime_pilgrimage and japan_onsen_guide.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like japan_regional_food or world_city_guide. Does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
japan_onsen_guideCInspectFamous Japanese hot spring (onsen) towns with water type, features, access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior (e.g., read-only, rate limits, required permissions). It only states content, not behavior, leaving agents unaware of side effects or restrictions.
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, which is concise but lacks structure. It efficiently conveys core content but omits details that could aid agent decision-making.
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 lack of output schema and minimal description, the tool does not explain what is returned (e.g., list of towns, details per town). The optional parameter behavior is unknown, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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 sole parameter 'q' is undocumented in both schema and description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain its purpose, format, or expected values, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 it covers famous Japanese onsen towns with water type, features, and access. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like anime_pilgrimage and japan_regional_food, which focus on different topics.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
japan_rail_linesCInspectMajor Japanese railway lines and key stations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any other behavioral traits, leaving the agent uninformed about side effects or limitations.
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 short (one phrase) but lacks essential details. While it is concise in word count, it sacrifices completeness, making it insufficient for correct tool usage.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description should fully explain the tool's purpose and parameter. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps about the query parameter and expected results.
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 only parameter 'q' has no description in the schema and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain what 'q' represents (e.g., search query, station name), forcing the agent to guess its meaning.
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 'Major Japanese railway lines and key stations' is a noun phrase that describes the content area but does not specify what action the tool performs. It lacks a verb (e.g., 'Search', 'List') and barely improves upon the name, making it vague for an AI agent deciding how to invoke it.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus siblings like japan_events or japan_regional_food, nor does it specify conditions for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
japan_regional_foodCInspectJapanese regional specialty dishes (sushi, ramen, wagyu, curry, gyoza...) with origin and description. Optional keyword filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No |
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 states the tool provides origin and description but does not mention data source, completeness, read-only nature, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
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 with examples, which is concise and front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words, though it could benefit from a clearer structure (e.g., listing examples or output format).
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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and filter capability. However, it lacks details on the output structure, data source, or any limitations, making it minimally 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 input schema has one parameter 'q' with 0% coverage. The description adds that it is an optional keyword filter, which adds basic meaning, but lacks details on usage (e.g., exact matching, case sensitivity, examples).
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 provides Japanese regional specialty dishes with origin and description, and mentions an optional keyword filter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which cover different Japan-related topics (events, onsen, rail, etc.), though it does not explicitly compare.
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 only mentions an optional keyword filter but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it specify when not to use it. No context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
jp_company_briefAInspectAI company research brief from official registries (Japan EDINET, Korea DART, UK Companies House). PAID TOOL: costs $0.25 USDC per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| country | No | JP | KR | UK |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description discloses it is paid and sources. However, lacks details on payment authentication, rate limits, or what exactly a 'brief' contains. 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?
Two efficient sentences: first states purpose and sources, second states pricing. No redundant 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?
No output schema; description says 'brief' but not what fields are returned. Missing payment process details. Adequate for a simple tool given context signals.
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 has 2 params: name (no description) and country (description 'JP | KR | UK'). 50% coverage. Description adds context that country maps to the registries listed, but name parameter remains undescribed.
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 it provides an AI company research brief from specific official registries (Japan EDINET, Korea DART, UK Companies House). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on anime, events, travel, etc.
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 mentions it is a paid tool with cost $0.25 USDC per call, warning agents about cost. No explicit when-not to use, but pricing implies careful use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
jp_data_api_catalogAInspectList all 29 paid pay-per-call endpoints of JP Data API (x402/USDC): filings, FX, weather, anime, sports, prediction markets and more.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the listing function but does not disclose whether calling the catalog incurs cost or requires authentication, though unlikely for a catalog.
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, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. 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 parameters or output schema, the description sufficiently defines the tool's purpose. Could mention output format, but not essential for a catalog.
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?
Input schema has no parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds value by specifying the catalog content: 29 paid endpoints across multiple categories.
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 lists all 29 paid pay-per-call endpoints of JP Data API, covering diverse categories. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are specific endpoints.
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 implies usage for browsing available endpoints, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references. Context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
jp_filings_listCInspectDaily Japanese corporate disclosures from EDINET (Japan FSA). PAID TOOL: costs $0.01 USDC per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions cost, ignoring important traits like authorization needs, rate limits, or any side effects (e.g., data freshness limits). The description is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 with two sentences: the first delivers the core purpose, the second adds cost information. No extraneous words, front-loaded. Waste is zero.
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 low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description lacks critical context such as the response format, whether data is historical, pagination limits, or how to handle errors. A paid tool requires more completeness to ensure correct use.
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% coverage with a single parameter 'date' described as 'YYYY-MM-DD'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as acceptable range or format examples. Baseline score applies as schema is adequate.
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 source (EDINET) and nature (daily Japanese corporate disclosures) of the data, distinguishing it from sibling tools like jp_company_brief. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'list' or 'retrieve'), making the action somewhat implicit.
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 the cost per call, which is helpful, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jp_company_brief) or any prerequisites. No usage context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
jp_memory_getCInspectRetrieve a value from persistent agent memory. PAID TOOL: costs $0.001 USDC per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ns | Yes | ||
| key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. Only mentions cost; lacks details on side effects, error handling (e.g., missing key), or idempotency.
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?
Short and front-loaded, but too sparse. Could include parameter descriptions without losing conciseness.
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?
Insufficient for a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters. Does not describe return value, error behavior, or usage context.
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 has 0% description coverage. Description does not explain 'ns' or 'key' parameters, their format, constraints, or typical values.
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?
Clearly states verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'value from persistent agent memory'. Distinguishes from sibling 'jp_memory_set' by implies retrieval vs set, and mentions it's a paid tool.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention when not to use, prerequisites, or context for retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
jp_memory_setBInspectStore a value in persistent agent memory that survives across sessions. PAID TOOL: costs $0.002 USDC per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ns | Yes | ||
| key | Yes | ||
| value | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses persistence across sessions and cost, but does not detail side effects like overwrite behavior, idempotency, authorization needs, or failure modes. 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?
Description is two sentences: purpose and cost. Efficient and front-loaded, no filler. Minor improvement could combine but overall concise.
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 3 required params with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, description should provide more context. It covers purpose and cost but omits parameter meanings, return value, and error behavior, leaving significant gaps.
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 has 0% description coverage for three parameters (ns, key, value). Description does not explain any parameter meaning, structure, or constraints. As schema coverage is low, description must compensate, but it fails to do so.
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 action 'Store a value' in 'persistent agent memory that survives across sessions', distinguishing it from sibling 'jp_memory_get' which retrieves values. The verb and resource are 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?
Only mentions tool is paid ($0.002 per call) but provides no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like jp_memory_get or when not to use it. No explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
jp_summarizeBInspectSummarize any text into a concise English brief. PAID TOOL: costs $0.02 USDC per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| style | No | bullets | paragraph |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the cost, but omits other important details like input length limits, supported languages, or processing time.
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, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and a key constraint (cost). No extraneous content.
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 no output schema and minimal description, the tool lacks explanation of return values, behavior nuances, or limitations. For a summarization tool, more context on output format and quality is needed.
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 50% (style has description, text does not). The description adds no extra information about parameters beyond the schema. It does not clarify the format or constraints for the 'text' parameter.
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's function: 'Summarize any text into a concise English brief.' It distinguishes from siblings like jp_translate and jp_company_brief, which serve different purposes.
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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions cost ('PAID TOOL: costs $0.02 USDC per call'), but does not specify contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
jp_translateAInspectJapanese-English translation (both directions), natural context-aware output. PAID TOOL: costs $0.02 USDC per call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | en | ja (optional) | |
| text | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Mentions paid cost and context-aware output, but does not detail side effects, idempotency, or rate limits. No annotations to supplement, so burden on description is partially met.
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, front-loaded with purpose and critical cost info. 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?
Lacks details on default behavior when 'to' is omitted, output format, and potential errors. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for complex scenarios.
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?
Adds value by explaining bidirectional translation, which clarifies the 'to' parameter's role. However, missing description for 'text' parameter and no format/syntax details beyond 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?
Clearly states Japanese-English translation in both directions with context-aware output. Distinct from sibling tools, no confusion.
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?
Implied usage for translation tasks, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
world_city_guideCInspectTravel guide for world major cities: attractions, food, transit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No |
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 mentions the types of information returned (attractions, food, transit) but does not disclose limits, data freshness, or whether the tool is read-only.
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 with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though more detail could be added without harming conciseness.
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, no annotations, and a single parameter with minimal description, the description does not sufficiently cover what the agent needs to know (e.g., return format, error handling, city name format).
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 a single 'city' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds that the tool covers 'world major cities', which provides some context on valid inputs but is vague.
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 is a travel guide for major world cities focusing on attractions, food, and transit. It distinguishes from sibling tools that are Japan-specific, so the global scope is clear.
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. While siblings are Japan-focused, the description does not state that this tool covers non-Japan cities or when to prefer it.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
