A
license-
qualityC
maintenanceProvides access to actual residential and commercial real estate transaction prices in Japan.
7
MIT
不動産情報サービス MCP
Server Details
国土交通省の不動産情報ライブラリから不動産価格データを取得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.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A3.8/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceC
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get-time retrieves current time, reinfolib-city-list gets city codes, and reinfolib-real-estate-price gets price data. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is inconsistent: 'get-time' uses a kebab-case verb-noun pattern, while 'reinfolib-city-list' and 'reinfolib-real-estate-price' use snake_case with a 'reinfolib-' prefix and different term order. No uniform convention.
Tool Count2/5
Only 3 tools, which is too few for a real estate information service. The inclusion of 'get-time' seems unrelated and suggests the server may have a mixed or ambiguous scope.
Completeness2/5
Missing essential tools like prefecture list, station list, property details, or search by multiple criteria. The set covers only city lookup and price, leaving significant gaps for real estate information retrieval.
Available Tools
3 toolsget-time時刻取得 / Get Current TimeARead-onlyInspect
指定したタイムゾーンの現在時刻を取得します。フォーマット文字列には date-fns の形式を使用します（例: 'yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss', 'yyyy年MM月dd日 HH時mm分ss秒'）。24時間表記には 'HH' を使用してください。
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timezone | No | タイムゾーン (IANA 形式。例: 'Asia/Tokyo'。省略時: Asia/Tokyo) | Asia/Tokyo |
| formatStr | No | フォーマット文字列 (date-fns形式。省略時: 'yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss') | yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| time | Yes | フォーマット済みの現在時刻 |
| timezone | Yes | 使用したタイムゾーン |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations, such as date-fns format support, example format strings, and the specific instruction to use 'HH' for 24-hour notation.
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—two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by relevant format guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
For this simple tool, the description covers the essential usage aspects: timezone, format string, examples, and the 24-hour notation caveat. The presence of an output schema and thorough parameter descriptions means no additional return-value documentation is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema descriptions already cover both parameters fully (100% coverage), but the description enriches understanding by providing concrete format examples and clarifying 24-hour notation behavior, which goes beyond the schema's basic definitions.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves the current time for a specified timezone using the verb '取得' (get) with a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools about city lists and real estate prices, and includes concrete format examples.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (get current time in a timezone) and explains the format string syntax with examples. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but siblings are unrelated, so no additional differentiation is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reinfolib-city-list都道府県内の市区町村一覧取得 / City List in PrefectureARead-onlyInspect
国土交通省の不動産情報ライブラリから都道府県内の市区町村一覧を取得します。都道府県コードを指定して検索します。ここで得た市区町村コード（id）は reinfolib-real-estate-price の city 引数に渡せます。
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | Yes | 都道府県コード: 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 | |
| language | No | 出力結果の言語 (ja:日本語, en:英語) |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | 市区町村一覧 |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the data source (国土交通省の不動産情報ライブラリ) and the purpose of the returned IDs, which complements the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds cross-tool integration context.
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 consists of two succinct sentences that front-load the core function and then explain the downstream use. No redundant information.
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?
With output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description conveys the tool's purpose, usage, and downstream integration. The mention of passing codes to reinfolib-real-estate-price completes the context.
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 prefecture code mapping and language option are already documented. The description only echoes '都道府県コードを指定して検索します' which adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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?
Description specifies a clear verb ('取得する' - retrieve) and resource ('不動産情報ライブラリ' - real estate info library) with scope ('都道府県内' - within a prefecture). It also distinguishes from the sibling reinfolib-real-estate-price by explaining the city codes are used as input for that tool.
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 provides context by stating the result can be passed to reinfolib-real-estate-price's city argument, which implies when this tool is useful. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reinfolib-real-estate-price不動産価格情報取得 / Real Estate Price InformationARead-onlyInspect
国土交通省の不動産情報ライブラリから不動産価格（取引価格・成約価格）情報を取得します。取引時期、地域（都道府県、市区町村、駅）などを指定して検索することが可能。市区町村コードは reinfolib-city-list ツールで取得できます。
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | No | 都道府県コード: 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 | |
| city | No | 市区町村コード (5桁) | |
| year | Yes | 取引時期(年) (形式: YYYY) | |
| limit | No | 取得件数 (デフォルト: 10件) | |
| quarter | No | 取引時期(四半期) (1:1月〜3月, 2:4月〜6月, 3:7月〜9月, 4:10月〜12月) | |
| station | No | 駅コード (6桁) | |
| language | No | 出力結果の言語 (ja:日本語, en:英語) | |
| priceClassification | No | 価格情報区分コード (01:不動産取引価格情報, 02:成約価格情報) |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | 不動産価格情報リスト（値が空のフィールドは省略される） |
| truncated | Yes | true の場合、limit を超える結果が省略されている。limit の引き上げ（最大100）または quarter・city・station での絞り込みで全量を取得できる |
| totalCount | Yes | 検索条件に該当した全件数 |
| returnedCount | Yes | 今回返した件数 |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only and open-world hints. The description adds the data source and notes that city codes come from a sibling tool, but it does not mention response format, pagination, or ordering. Given the good annotation coverage, the description provides some added context but not rich behavioral detail.
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 three short, focused sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second lists search criteria, and the third gives a useful pointer to the city-list tool. No unnecessary 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?
For an 8-parameter read-only search tool with a rich schema and output schema, the description provides an adequate overview and the key prerequisite (city codes). It does not explain typical use cases or limit behavior, but the structured data fills the gaps.
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 all parameters are documented. The description adds a cross-reference for obtaining city codes and mentions search dimensions, but it does not detail parameter syntax or add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. This is the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves real estate price information from the Ministry of Land's Real Estate Information Library, specifying transaction and contract prices. It explicitly focuses on price data, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-time and reinfolib-city-list.
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 indicates the tool can search by transaction time and region, and points users to reinfolib-city-list for municipality codes, providing a helpful cross-reference. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or contrast with alternatives, but the usage context is clear.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceAccess official Japanese land prices (地価公示/地価調査) through the Pipeworx MCP gateway.7MIT
- Alicense-qualityFmaintenanceEnables LLMs to search and retrieve Japanese real estate data through unified access to the MLIT Real Estate Information Library API, supporting over 25 geospatial datasets for interactive queries.182MIT
- Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceJapanese real-estate actual transaction prices and official land prices (official MLIT Reinfolib data): search by area, period, and property type, with published land-price reference points.