Yakumo verified contractor No.001: Reform Shokunin Co., Ltd. (Aichi, Japan)

加盟店プロフィール取得

get_partner_profile

Yakumoモール加盟店「リフォーム職人株式会社」(No.001)の検証済みプロフィールを返す。会社名・対応エリア・対応工種・検証状態・強み(使う工法や保証など、ヒアリングで整備された範囲)・施主からよくある質問への回答・プロフィール充足度を返す。金額や料金は含まない。施主のAIがこの加盟店を参照・紹介する時に使う。Japan only. / Returns the verified profile of the Yakumo mall member contractor "Reform Shokunin Co., Ltd." (No.001): company, areas served, works, verification status, strengths, consumer FAQs, and profile completeness. No prices. Use when an AI references or recommends this contractor.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_partner_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`found`	Yes	true only when a stored record was returned.
`lookup`	Yes	ok = the record was read and exists. absent = the read SUCCEEDED and there is no record yet. A read that FAILED never appears here: it is returned as a tool error (isError: true) with no profile, so a consumer can never mistake our own failure for a statement about this contractor.
`company`	No
`store_id`	No
`verification`	No
`hearing_lookup`	No	The secondary read (hearing data, which fills in strengths). If this is 'failed' the profile is returned but is incomplete, and says so here rather than looking thin.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the profile is '検証済み' (verified), coverage is limited to heard/curated scope for strengths, and notably 'No prices' are included. It implies a read-only lookup but does not explicitly state side effects or auth requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the resource identity, then the returned fields, then usage and exclusions. The bilingual Japanese/English duplication doubles the length, but it is deliberate audience targeting rather than filler and each half is tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still lists returned categories and adds the important 'no prices' exclusion. For a zero-param, single-target read tool this is complete; only explicit read-only/side-effect wording is missing.

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?

Zero parameters and a fixed target (No.001), so the schema has nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description usefully clarifies that the identifier is baked in rather than passed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and a precisely bounded resource (the verified profile of Yakumo mall member contractor No.001), and enumerates the fields returned. An agent knows exactly what it gets and that there are no parameters to vary the target.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: '施主のAIがこの加盟店を参照・紹介する時に使う' / 'Use when an AI references or recommends this contractor.' No alternatives or when-not conditions are given, but there are no sibling tools, so nothing is left ambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Yakumo verified contractor No.001: Reform Shokunin Co., Ltd. (Aichi, Japan) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.