Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Free Agent Tools

by io.github.sean0007
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Which JLPT level do I need in Japan? Visa / status Japanese rules a level meets

japan_jlpt_level_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compares a JLPT level (N1–N5, optional total score 0–180) plus optional BJT score and Japanese schooling with Japan's published Japanese-language rules as of 2026-11-09 (JLPT Advantages page + official CEFR reference, ISA HSP points table, 特定活動46号, 経営・管理 2025-10-16 revision, 特定技能 field pages, 育成就労 Japanese page, 永住許可ガイドライン 2026-10-01). level: n1 | n2 | n3 | n4 | n5 | none. Optional: score, bjtScore, japaneseDegree, japaneseHigherEd (専門学校 etc.), japaneseMajorAbroad, japaneseHighSchool, japaneseSchooling6y, yearsInJapan, jftBasic, titp2, titp2Care, careJapaneseTest, hsp, applyDate (rules starting 2027-04-01), today. Returns verdict (b2_plus | b1 | a2 | a1 | none), summary, cefr {level, atLeast, note}, hspPoints, metCount, items[] {id, name, nameJa, kind, status (met | not_met | exempt | points | no_points | considered_met | considered_unclear | considered_not_met | not_considered | not_in_force_yet | not_required | check_rules), rule, you, source}, nextLevelUnlocks, warnings, sources, disclaimer. Use for 'which JLPT level do I need for a Japan visa', 'does Business Manager need N2', 'JLPT N3 permanent residence 2027', 'JLPT CEFR level', 'HSP points JLPT', '日本語能力試験 何級 在留資格', '特定技能 N4'. Educational, not immigration advice; not affiliated with ISA or the JLPT organisers.

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": "japan_jlpt_level_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hspNoHSP holder or HSP family member.
levelNoHighest JLPT level passed (default none).
scoreNoJLPT total score (総合得点) on that level, for the CEFR reference.
titp2NoCompleted Technical Intern Training (ii) in good standing.
todayNoAs-of date, YYYY-MM-DD (default today JST).
bjtScoreNoBJT Business Japanese score.
jftBasicNoPassed JFT-Basic (A2).
applyDateNoPlanned application date, YYYY-MM-DD (default today).
titp2CareNoThat TITP (ii) was in nursing care.
yearsInJapanNoYears living in Japan as a mid/long-term resident.
japaneseDegreeNoDegree from a Japanese university / graduate school.
careJapaneseTestNoPassed the Care Japanese Language Evaluation Test.
japaneseHigherEdNoGraduated from a Japanese 専門学校, 高専 or junior college.
japaneseHighSchoolNoJapanese compulsory education + Japanese high school.
japaneseMajorAbroadNoMajored in Japanese at a foreign university.
japaneseSchooling6yNo6+ years of primary/secondary school in Japan.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the rule sources are dated, applyDate switches to rules effective 2027-04-01, and there is an educational-use disclaimer with no affiliation. Since no output schema exists, the enumeration of verdict/cefr/items/status values is genuinely informative rather than redundant. It does not explain what happens with internally contradictory inputs (e.g., level=none plus score) or whether results are cached.

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?

The opening sentence is a single sprawling sentence that buries the actual purpose behind a long parenthetical list of legal sources. The return-field dump is dense but useful; the source list is mostly noise for an agent deciding whether to call the tool. It is front-loaded only in the sense that the verb appears first.

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 a 16-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema tool this is fairly complete: it explains inputs, enumerates the return shape including the items[] status vocabulary, and discloses the dating model and legal disclaimer. Remaining gaps are the conflict-resolution behavior and the absence of any hint about result latency or determinism.

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 coverage is 100% and all 16 properties carry their own descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does add some meaning on top, notably that score feeds the CEFR reference, that japaneseHigherEd covers 専門学校 etc., and that applyDate activates rules starting 2027-04-01. However, most of the enumeration just restates parameter names and does not resolve the genuinely ambiguous cases, such as how yearsInJapan or the various schooling flags interact.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: it compares a JLPT level (plus BJT/schooling inputs) against Japan's published Japanese-language requirements and returns a verdict. The scope is unmistakable. It loses a point because it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as japan_hsp_points_check or japan_permanent_residency_check, even though its example queries ('HSP points JLPT', 'JLPT N3 permanent residence 2027') clearly overlap them.

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 an explicit 'Use for ...' list of trigger queries in both English and Japanese, which is strong routing guidance for an agent. It never states when NOT to use it, nor names the sibling tools (japan_hsp_points_check, japan_permanent_residency_check) an agent should prefer for pure points or PR calculations.

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

All Free Agent Tools toolsInspect
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.

Resources