japan_tender_referenceReference values accepted by the Japanese tender search tools: the three procurement categories, the notice/procedure types, and all 47 JIS X0401 prefecture codes with Japanese and romanised names. Call this when a filter value is rejected or when you need the code for a prefecture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the reference content and framing it as the accepted vocabulary for the tender search tools, which is more than the annotations alone 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?
Two concise sentences deliver the content inventory and usage guidance without wasted words. The first sentence defines what the tool is, and the second provides actionable call conditions.
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 zero-parameter reference tool, the description is complete: it names the included data, the supported language variants, and the situations in which it should be called. No additional information is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's content and purpose rather than inventing parameter details.
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 identifies the tool as a reference resource for Japanese tender search tools, specifying exactly what it contains: procurement categories, notice/procedure types, and all 47 JIS X0401 prefecture codes with Japanese and romanised names. This distinguishes it from the sibling search tools, which perform queries rather than provide accepted filter values.
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?
The description gives explicit triggers for use: when a filter value is rejected or when a prefecture code is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative, but its reference-only role is clear enough that an agent can route appropriately.
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.