Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.localgov-jp

subscribe_changes

Create a webhook subscription that pushes grant-change events matching a filter. Cost: $0.20 USDC via x402 (paid by the agent runtime). On 402 response, agent must satisfy payment and retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filterYesAt least one filter dimension required
ttl_daysNoSubscription lifetime in days (1-90, default 30)
hmac_secretYesShared secret used to HMAC-SHA256 sign delivery payloads (16-256 chars)
callback_urlYesHTTPS URL that will receive POSTed event payloads

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailsNo
expires_atNo
callback_urlNo
subscription_idNo
payment_requiredNo

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive nature. The description adds valuable context: cost ($0.20 USDC via x402), payment requirement, and retry on 402 response, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, each purposeful: the first states the core functionality, the second adds cost and retry behavior. No wasted words.

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 tool has 4 parameters, a nested object, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and critical behavioral details (cost, retry).

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 detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 ('Create a webhook subscription') and resource ('grant-change events'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that query subsidies or practitioners.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage for setting up push notifications for grant changes and mentions cost/payment behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare alternatives.

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