Skip to main content
Glama

Free Agent Tools

Can this person drive in Japan on their foreign license, until when, and can they convert it to a Japanese license (外免切替)?

japan_driving_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Applies Road Traffic Act art. 107-2 / 97-2 as published by the National Police Agency and Tokyo police (rules as of 2026-10-27; Geneva list = NPA data May 2026). Short-term driving: a 1949 Geneva-format IDP from an issuing party (US via AAA, UK, Canada, Australia, Korea, India, Thailand, Philippines, Hong Kong, most of Europe…; Vienna-format IDPs invalid; UAE/Bangladesh issue two kinds), or for Switzerland, Germany, France, Belgium, Monaco and Taiwan the home license + an official Japanese translation (JAF, embassy, 訪日運転者支援協会, ADAC, 台湾日本関係協会/ZIPLUS). Non-issuing parties (Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Ghana…) and unlisted places (China, Vietnam, Brazil, Indonesia, Nepal, Mexico…) have no route; NPA inquiry open for Nigeria, Morocco, Jamaica etc. Period: 1 year from landing, capped by IDP validity (1 year from issue) and license expiry; residents' trips under 3 months don't restart it (3-month rule), visitors restart each landing. Conversion (外免切替): valid license, 3+ months in the issuing country after getting it, 住民票 required since 2025-10-01 (tourists can't), tests waived for 28 countries + US states OH, OR, CO, VA, HI, MD, WA (Indiana: driving check only), otherwise 50-question knowledge check (45 to pass) + driving check; reported Oct–Dec 2025 pass rates 42.8% / 13.1%; Tokyo fees ¥2,500 + ¥2,350. Returns verdict (can_drive | not_yet | expired | need_document | not_valid | unclear), headline, summary, howToDrive, period {countStart, lastDay, daysLeft, limits, restarts}, conversion {canApply, blockers, tests, documents, fees, notes}, steps, warnings, sources, disclaimer. Use for 'can I drive in Japan with an international license', 'rent a car in Japan on a US license', 国際免許 日本 いつまで, 外免切替. Educational, not legal advice; not affiliated with NPA or JAF.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "country": "<country>"
    },
    "name": "japan_driving_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ageNoDriver's age.
todayNoYYYY-MM-DD date to check (default: today in Japan).
tripsNoResidents: trips abroad since entryDate as left_returned pairs, comma separated, e.g. '2026-08-01_2026-09-10,2026-12-20_2027-01-05'.
countryYesCountry/region that issued the driver's license: ISO code (US, GB, CN, TW, DE, HK…) or English/Japanese name.
usStateNoUS licenses: issuing state code, e.g. WA, HI, CA (matters for conversion tests).
documentNoWhat the driver holds. auto (default) = tell me what's needed.
entryDateNoYYYY-MM-DD landing date in Japan (residents: landing that started the count).
residencyNovisitor = tourist/short-term (default); resident = residence card, on 住民票; japanese_abroad = Japanese national living abroad.
idpIssueDateNoYYYY-MM-DD date the IDP was issued (valid 1 year).
licenseExpiryNoYYYY-MM-DD expiry of the home license.
monthsInIssuingCountryNoConversion: total months lived in the issuing country after getting the license (3+ needed).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so credit goes to what's added: the data vintage disclaimer ('rules as of 2026-10-27; Geneva list = NPA data May 2026'), the enumerated verdict values including 'unclear' for unresolvable cases, and the explicit 'educational, not legal advice; not affiliated with NPA or JAF' caveat. It does not describe failure modes for malformed input or how the 'unclear' verdict is triggered, keeping it below 5.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Content is dense and almost nothing is padding, but the whole definition is one run-on paragraph; the most decision-relevant part (the verdict enum and returned fields) is buried at the end after a long policy digression on issuing parties. Front-loading and breaking the policy detail out would materially help an agent parse it.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and a genuinely intricate legal domain, the description does the heavy lifting: it enumerates every returned field (verdict, howToDrive, period, conversion, steps, warnings, sources), states the verdict vocabulary, and flags jurisdictional edge cases (Vienna-format IDPs invalid, UAE/Bangladesh dual issuers, residents vs visitors). Minor gaps remain around defaults and ambiguous-input handling, so 4.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by supplying the rules that give parameters meaning — '1 year from landing, capped by IDP validity (1 year from issue) and license expiry' explains how entryDate/idpIssueDate/licenseExpiry combine, and the 3-month rule explains what the trips parameter is for. It does not do this per-parameter or in a structured way, so 4.

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?

Opens with a specific legal instrument (Road Traffic Act art. 107-2 / 97-2) and states exactly what the tool returns: a verdict on short-term driving legality, its period, and 外免切替 conversion eligibility. No sibling tool covers driving/licences, and the scope is unmistakable without opening the schema.

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?

Provides explicit invocation triggers — 'can I drive in Japan with an international license', 'rent a car in Japan on a US license', 国際免許 日本 いつまで, 外免切替 — which map cleanly to agent intents. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., Japanese licence holders renewing domestically) or naming an alternative, so it sits at 4 rather than 5.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.