Skip to main content
Glama

Get emergency contacts

get_emergency_contacts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Emergency numbers for Tokyo: 119 (ambulance/fire, multilingual), #7119 (should-I-call-an-ambulance consultation), TMC Navi 0120-142-142 (any life problem, ~15 languages).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_emergency_contacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description does not need to re-state safety behavior. It adds useful detail about multilingual support and service categories, but it does not disclose source, freshness, or return structure. That is adequate with annotations present, but not especially rich.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single dense but readable sentence, front-loaded with the Tokyo emergency-number scope. Every element appears to carry relevant content, with no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter static lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the actual contact numbers and categories an agent would need. It is nearly complete, though it could explicitly state that these are the returned contacts and whether the list is exhaustive or current.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain beyond confirming the no-argument lookup behavior. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce confusion about inputs.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly identifies the resource and scope: emergency numbers for Tokyo, with specific service categories. It is distinct from the sibling procedure, ward, and glossary tools. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', but the intended purpose is readily apparent.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'Emergency numbers for Tokyo' and the listed services, so an agent can infer this is for urgent-contact lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, when-not-to-use guidance, or reference to alternatives, but for this narrow static lookup the implication is reasonably clear.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.