Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.localgov-jp

compare_municipal_subsidies

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare same-category subsidies across nearby municipalities (same prefecture by default). Useful for relocation / siting decisions. Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryNoCategory to compare; if omitted, the most-frequent category at the anchor is auto-picked
max_municipalitiesNoMax number of municipalities in the comparison (2-20, default 10)
anchor_municipality_codeYesJIS code of the anchor municipality to compare around

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryYes
prefectureYes
per_municipalityYes
municipalities_comparedYes
anchor_municipality_codeYes

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool is 'Free' and that it defaults to the same prefecture, which are useful behavioral details beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no fluff.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (making return value explanation unnecessary), the description covers purpose, default behavior, and typical use case. Minor omission: no explicit mention of the 'nearby' radius beyond prefecture.

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 the schema already describes all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what is in the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('same-category subsidies across nearby municipalities'), and differentiates from sibling tools like search_subsidies or get_municipality_grants.

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?

The description states it is 'useful for relocation / siting decisions', providing context, but does not explicitly list when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use.

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

All mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: comparing subsidies across municipalities, recommending practitioners, finding supplementary grants, listing grants for a municipality, getting subsidy details, searching subsidies, subscribing to changes, and verifying receipts. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., compare_municipal_subsidies, find_practitioner, search_subsidies). No deviations or mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a server focused on Japanese subsidies. Each tool serves a distinct function without being excessive or insufficient.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle for subsidy data: search, get details, list by municipality, compare across municipalities, find supplementary grants, practitioner recommendations, subscription for changes, and receipt verification. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.

Resources