SiteCheck Jobs & Property

Second-hand condominiums for sale in Japan from SUUMO

realestate_suumo

Read-only

Second-hand condominiums for sale in Japan from SUUMO: building name, headline, price (yen), address, nearest line/station and walk time, floor area (m²), layout (e.g. 2LDK), balcony, build year/month, selling agent and listing URL, 30 per page, for a prefecture (and optionally a city/ward code). Text is in Japanese as published. Takes about 14 s; allow a 30 s timeout. Related tools on this server, for a different need: realestate_estately when you need US homes for sale from Estately for a city: per listing; realestate_hemnet when you need Hemnet homes for sale in an area: address, housing form. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "prefecture": "<prefecture>"
    },
    "name": "realestate_suumo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Results page 1 to 50 (default 1)
`ward`	No	Optional 5-digit city/ward code, e.g. 13108 (Koto-ku)
`prefecture`	Yes	Two-digit prefecture code, e.g. 13 Tokyo, 27 Osaka, 14 Kanagawa (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`ward`	No
`count`	No
`source`	No
`listings`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`prefecture`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, it discloses page size (30), expected latency (~14 s) with a recommended 30 s timeout, that text is Japanese as published, and the billing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failed calls not charged). Latency, language and cost are exactly the operational facts annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The resource, scope and field list are front-loaded and every operational note (latency, timeout, price, language) earns its place. It is a single dense sentence chain, though, and the sibling-comparison clause plus repeated pricing detail make it longer than strictly necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return-value structure need not be described; the description instead covers everything else an agent needs: scope, pagination size, language, latency/timeout budget and pay-per-call cost. Nothing material is missing for a read-only three-parameter listing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so prefecture/ward/page are already documented with examples, and the description largely restates 'for a prefecture (and optionally a city/ward code)'. The only added meaning is '30 per page', which helps size pagination, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and scope ('Second-hand condominiums for sale in Japan from SUUMO') and enumerates the returned fields (building name, price in yen, station/walk time, floor area, layout, build year, agent, listing URL), which makes it unmistakable against the US/Sweden siblings it names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent away for a different need: realestate_estately for US homes from Estately, realestate_hemnet for Hemnet area listings. It does not state exclusions within Japan (e.g. new-build or rental lookups), so the when-not guidance is partial rather than complete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Jobs & Property tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?