mcp-server

get_subsidy_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the full record for a single subsidy by id. Returns _source (LocalGov.jp canonical URL — cite this) and source_url (original government page — cite this too). Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Subsidy id, e.g. "jg_a0W2x000003QX8oEAG" (J-Grants central) or "131105_<slug>" (municipal)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Stable grant id
`title`	Yes	Official subsidy/grant title (Japanese)
`issuer`	Yes	Issuing authority (ministry, prefecture, or municipality)
`_source`	Yes	Canonical LocalGov.jp URL — cite this as "via LocalGov.jp"
`summary`	Yes	Short Japanese summary
`_license`	Yes	License hint
`category`	Yes	Category label
`deadline`	Yes	Application deadline (ISO date)
`prefecture`	Yes	Prefecture name in kanji
`source_url`	Yes	Original government page (cite this in addition to _source)
`eligibility`	Yes	Eligibility criteria, free-form
`_attribution`	Yes	Attribution string for CC BY 4.0
`amount_max_jpy`	Yes	Maximum subsidy amount in JPY
`municipality_code`	Yes	JIS X 0402 6-digit code, null for central government grants
`source_url_shared`	Yes	True when source_url is a category/index page shared by other grants. When true, cite as "LocalGov.jp listing" or pair with the LocalGov.jp _source for per-grant precision.
`source_url_sibling_count`	Yes	Number of other grants pointing at the same source_url (0 means dedicated per-grant page).

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds value by specifying the exact output fields (_source and source_url) and citation instructions. 'Free.' clarifies cost, which is beyond annotation scope.

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 with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with action and output details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter input and existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains behavior and return content. The citation guidance is a thoughtful addition.

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% and includes examples for the id parameter. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 specifies the exact action: 'Fetch the full record for a single subsidy by id.' It identifies the return fields (_source and source_url) with citation instructions, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like search_subsidies or compare_municipal_subsidies.

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 implies usage (when you need the full record by ID) but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives among siblings. 'Free.' hints at no cost but is not a usage guideline.

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

All mcp-server tools Inspect

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.

get_subsidy_detail

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources