不動産情報検索・分析 MCP
Server Details
中小企業庁が公開している公共調達情報を検索するためのサービスです。
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 2.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The single tool is uniquely identifiable.
Only one tool exists, so naming is trivially consistent. The name 'kkj-search' follows a clean pattern.
The server claims to be for real estate information search and analysis, but provides only one tool for public procurement, which is a severe mismatch in scope and purpose.
The tool surface is extremely limited, offering only a single search function that does not align with the server's stated domain of real estate, leaving obvious gaps for any meaningful use case.
Available Tools
1 toolkkj-search公共調達情報検索 / Public Procurement Information SearchCRead-onlyInspect
公共調達情報を検索します。検索クエリ、件名、機関名、都道府県コード、カテゴリ（物品、工事、役務）などのパラメータを使用して詳細な検索が可能です。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | 返却する検索結果の最大件数（1〜1000、デフォルト: 10）。API にページングはないため、総ヒット件数（応答の SearchHits）がこれを超える場合は count を増やすか、cftIssueDate などの日付範囲で条件を分割して取得する | |
| query | No | 検索文字列 | |
| lgCode | No | 都道府県コード (JIS X0401): 北海道=01, 青森県=02, 岩手県=03, 宮城県=04, 秋田県=05, 山形県=06, 福島県=07, 茨城県=08, 栃木県=09, 群馬県=10, 埼玉県=11, 千葉県=12, 東京都=13, 神奈川県=14, 新潟県=15, 富山県=16, 石川県=17, 福井県=18, 山梨県=19, 長野県=20, 岐阜県=21, 静岡県=22, 愛知県=23, 三重県=24, 滋賀県=25, 京都府=26, 大阪府=27, 兵庫県=28, 奈良県=29, 和歌山県=30, 鳥取県=31, 島根県=32, 岡山県=33, 広島県=34, 山口県=35, 徳島県=36, 香川県=37, 愛媛県=38, 高知県=39, 福岡県=40, 佐賀県=41, 長崎県=42, 熊本県=43, 大分県=44, 宮崎県=45, 鹿児島県=46, 沖縄県=47 | |
| category | No | カテゴリー (1:物品, 2:工事, 3:役務) | |
| projectName | No | 件名 | |
| cftIssueDate | No | 公告日またはデータ取得日の範囲。日付は YYYY-MM-DD 形式で「開始日/終了日」のように指定する（例: "2026-07-01/2026-07-15"。開始日のみ: "2026-07-01/"、終了日のみ: "/2026-07-15"、単日: "2026-07-14/2026-07-14"） | |
| certification | No | 入札資格 (A, B, C, D) | |
| periodEndTime | No | 納入期限日の範囲。YYYY-MM-DD 形式で「開始日/終了日」のように指定する（例: "2026-07-01/2026-12-31"。片側のみも可） | |
| procedureType | No | 公示種別 (1:一般競争入札, 2:簡易公募型競争入札, 3:簡易公募型指名競争入札) | |
| organizationName | No | 機関名 | |
| openingTendersEvent | No | 開札日の範囲。YYYY-MM-DD 形式で「開始日/終了日」のように指定する（例: "2026-07-01/2026-08-31"。片側のみも可） | |
| maxDescriptionLength | No | 公告本文（ProjectDescription）の最大文字数（デフォルト: 1000）。超過分は切り詰められ ProjectDescriptionTruncated が true になる。全文が必要な場合は大きな値を指定するか、ExternalDocumentURI の原文書を参照する | |
| tenderSubmissionDeadline | No | 入札開始日の範囲。YYYY-MM-DD 形式で「開始日/終了日」のように指定する（例: "2026-07-01/2026-08-31"。片側のみも可: "2026-07-01/"） |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| message | No | 0件時の案内 |
| SearchHits | No | 検索条件に該当した総ヒット件数（常に返る）。SearchResult の件数（最大 count 件）がこれより少ない場合、続きは cftIssueDate などの日付範囲で条件を分割して取得する（この API にページングはない） |
| SearchResult | No | 検索結果の一覧（最大 count 件） |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it is a search. No mention of rate limits, data freshness, or side effects, so little added value.
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 a single concise sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is appropriately short but does not expand on details.
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?
Given the tool has 13 parameters and no required ones, the description is too minimalistic. It lacks context about typical use cases, the domain of public procurement, or any guidance for effective searching. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but completeness is still low.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions. No param-specific details in the description.
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?
The description clearly states the tool searches public procurement information and lists parameters. It is specific enough, but since there are no siblings, differentiation is not needed, so a 4 is appropriate.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The description only describes the search capability without providing context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!