Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Free Agent Tools

by io.github.sean0007
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

By what date must a foreign resident who leaves Japan be back so their status doesn't lapse?

japan_reentry_deadline_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Applies Japan's Immigration Control Act art. 26-2 (deemed re-entry permit, みなし再入国許可), art. 26 (regular re-entry permit) and art. 20(6) (special period while an extension or change of status is pending), with Civil Code date counting (departure day not counted; leave 2026-10-24 → back by 2027-10-24; expiry 2026-12-30 + 2 months → 2027-02-28). Rules as of 2026-10-24. Deemed re-entry: 1 year from departure, or the period-of-stay expiry if earlier; special permanent residents 2 years; CANNOT be extended abroad; not available to temporary visitors (短期滞在), periods of 3 months or less, or refugee-applicant Designated Activities. Renewal/change pending past expiry: return by the earlier of 1 year from departure or old expiry + 2 months, and receive the decision at the immigration office by then (ISA Q&A). Regular permit: its expiry (max 5 years, SPR 6), extendable at an embassy by up to 1 year. Returns verdict (in_time | too_late | deadline_only | no_deemed_reentry | already_expired), returnBy with legal basis, days allowed, margin vs returnDate, specialPeriod {endsOn, mustReceiveDecisionBy}, canExtendAbroad, steps (ED card tick box), warnings, sources, disclaimer. Use for 'how long can I leave Japan', 'can I travel while my visa renewal is pending', permanent residents abroad. Educational, not legal advice; not affiliated with ISA.

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": {
      "status": "<status>",
      "departureDate": "<departureDate>"
    },
    "name": "japan_reentry_deadline_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
permitNodeemed (みなし再入国, default) or a regular re-entry permit in the passport (single / multiple).
statusYesmid_long = residence card holder (work, student, spouse, dependent, long-term resident…); permanent; spr = special permanent resident; short_term = tourist / temporary visitor; three_months_or_less; refugee_applicant (Designated Activities).
pendingNoExtension or change-of-status application filed before expiry and not yet decided. Default none.
returnDateNoYYYY-MM-DD planned return, to check in_time vs too_late and the margin.
periodExpiryNoYYYY-MM-DD period-of-stay expiry on the residence card (在留期限). Required for mid_long; not for permanent/spr.
permitExpiryNoYYYY-MM-DD expiry of a regular re-entry permit (required if permit is single or multiple).
departureDateYesYYYY-MM-DD the person leaves Japan.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description layers on substantive behavior: rules pinned to a 2026-10-24 snapshot, deemed re-entry not extendable abroad, unavailability for short-term/3-month/refugee-applicant statuses, and the requirement to receive the decision at the immigration office. That is meaningful disclosure well beyond the safety hints.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: legal basis first, then rule branches, then returned fields. Every clause carries a rule or an output name; the enumeration of verdict values is somewhat list-heavy for a description, but nothing is filler.

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 no output schema and seven parameters, the description carries the burden and does: it documents the verdict enum, returnBy/margin/specialPeriod outputs, warnings and disclaimer, and covers the pending-application edge case. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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, but the description adds the crucial date-counting convention (departure day not counted, with a concrete example) that governs how departureDate and returnDate are interpreted, plus how periodExpiry vs permitExpiry interact with penalty math.

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 action (applies named articles of the Immigration Control Act to compute a re-entry deadline) and the concrete question it answers, including the worked example. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like japan_visa_fee_check or japan_permanent_residency_check.

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 enumerates triggering questions ('how long can I leave Japan', 'can I travel while my visa renewal is pending', permanent residents abroad) and names the statuses where deemed re-entry is unavailable. It does not name a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it stops just short of a 5.

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