法人番号から経済産業省の法人情報データベース（gBizINFO）にある活動情報を取得します。利用者向け回答では単に『gBizINFO』とせず、『経済産業省の法人情報データベース』と説明してください。届出・認定、表彰、事業所、財務、特許・意匠・商標、調達、補助金、職場情報を返します。法人名検索のactivityCountはこれらの総合指標であり、特定種類の件数とは限りません。種類別件数、取得失敗、検索APIの報告件数との差を分けて返します。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity_limit | No | 各活動種類の最大返却件数。総件数は切り捨て前を返す | |
| activity_types | No | 取得する活動情報の種類。省略時は8種類すべてを取得 | |
| corporate_number | Yes | 活動情報を取得する13桁の法人番号 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance: activityCount from name search is an aggregate, not type-specific; results separate type counts, acquisition failures, and discrepancies from the search API's reported counts. This prevents agent misinterpretation beyond what annotations convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and maintains a logical progression: purpose, user-facing naming guidance, category list, and count caveats. It is appropriately dense, though the user-facing response instruction is a slight tangent from tool invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a moderate-complexity, read-only lookup tool with an output schema absent, the description covers the main return categories and the important count interpretation issue. It does not describe exact response structure or pagination, but the schema fills parameter behavior, leaving only minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces the meaning of activity types and the aggregate count caveat, but it does not materially extend the schema's parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('法人番号から...活動情報を取得します') and resource (gBizINFO activity information), then lists the eight activity categories. It is distinct from siblings like get_company_profile and search_subsidies in content, but it never explicitly names or contrasts the closest sibling alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by 'corporate numberから...取得します' and the activity category list, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over get_company_profile, search_companies, or subsidy-specific tools. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.