Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.localgov-jp

search_subsidies

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Japanese central + municipal subsidies. Combine keyword (Japanese), prefecture, municipality_code, category, or minimum amount. Returns up to limit records. Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoSort order; default "relevance" when keyword set, otherwise "newest"
limitNoMax records to return (1-100, default 20)
offsetNoPagination offset (default 0)
keywordNoFree-text Japanese keyword (FTS), e.g. "IT導入", "創業", "省エネ"
categoryNoCategory label (e.g. "子育て", "住宅", "事業者支援") — usually omit and rely on keyword
open_onlyNoWhen true, exclude records whose deadline has passed (default: false = include all)
prefectureNoPrefecture name in kanji, e.g. "東京都", "北海道"
min_amount_jpyNoMinimum subsidy amount in JPY; only records with amount_max_jpy >= this
municipality_codeNoJIS X 0402 6-digit municipality code (e.g. 131105 = 杉並区)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesRecords on this page
totalYesTotal matching records (independent of limit/offset)

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal extra behavioral context. It mentions 'Free' and 'Returns up to limit records', but does not disclose pagination behavior beyond offset/limit or data freshness.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds key details about combining filters and the limit parameter. No wasted words.

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 9 parameters (none required) and an output schema, the description covers the main filters, limit behavior, and free status. It could mention offset and sort defaults, but those are in the schema, so completeness is good.

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 description does not need to add much. It mentions combining keyword, prefecture, municipality_code, category, or minimum amount, but adds little insight beyond the schema definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool searches Japanese central and municipal subsidies with various filters. It distinguishes it from sibling tools by being the general search, but does not explicitly mention how it differs from get_subsidy_detail 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 Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_subsidy_detail for specific subsidy details or compare_municipal_subsidies for comparisons. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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