Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.localgov-jp

find_supplementary_grants

Read-onlyIdempotent

Given a central J-Grants subsidy id, search for municipal grants that supplement it (e.g. national "事業再構築" + city-level "事業再構築追加上乗せ"). Heuristic title-token match. Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax records (1-50, default 30)
prefectureNoRestrict supplementaries to municipalities of a single prefecture
central_grant_idYesCentral J-Grants id, e.g. "jg_a0W..."

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
centralYesEcho of the seed central grant
base_tokenYesHeuristic base token used for matching
supplementaryYes
supplementary_countYes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: 'Heuristic title-token match' and 'Free', which inform behavior beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, example, and key traits. No filler, front-loaded with essential information.

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?

Simple tool with output schema present. Description covers input, heuristic method, and cost. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination or empty results, but acceptable for a straightforward read operation.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the primary parameter context. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action: search for municipal grants that supplement a given central J-Grants subsidy id. It provides a concrete example and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on supplementary grants, not general search or municipality listing.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 vs. alternatives like 'search_subsidies' or 'get_municipality_grants'. The description implies usage via a central grant id but lacks when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings.

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