address-to-zip
Server Details
日本の住所と郵便番号を相互変換するMCPサーバー。住所から郵便番号を検索、郵便番号から住所を逆引きします。
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: lookup_zipcode converts zip to address, while search_address converts address to zip. No overlap or ambiguity exists.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (lookup_zipcode, search_address) with clear, descriptive names.
Two tools is minimal but appropriate for this focused domain, covering the essential bidirectional lookup without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set fully covers the core functionality: converting between zip codes and addresses in both directions, including support for different formats and romanization.
Available Tools
2 toolslookup_zipcodeAInspect
郵便番号から住所を逆引きする。100-0005 または 1000005 形式に対応(全角数字・ハイフン有無は不問)。結果には日本郵便準拠のローマ字表記(romaji)を含む。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zipcode | Yes | 郵便番号(例: 100-0005 または 1000005。全角数字・ハイフン有無も可) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behaviors. It covers input format and output feature (romaji) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authorization, or has side effects. This is adequate for a simple lookup but not fully transparent.
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 sentences, no redundancy, and all information is pertinent. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes necessary details without extraneous text.
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?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks details on the full return structure (only mentions romaji). With no output schema, it should specify what address components are returned. It is moderately complete but could be more thorough.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (one param), baseline 3. The description adds value by detailing accepted formats (full-width digits, hyphen optional), which goes beyond the schema's example. This enhances understanding of valid inputs.
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 states the tool performs a reverse lookup from zipcode to address, specifies input format flexibility, and mentions output includes romaji. The sibling tool 'search_address' is distinct, so purpose is unambiguous and well-defined.
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 implicitly indicates usage when a zipcode is available (reverse lookup), and the sibling context provides differentiation. However, no explicit guidance on when to avoid or alternative use cases is given, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_addressAInspect
日本の住所文字列から郵便番号を検索する。番地・建物名付きでも町名まで解釈する。ローマ字・英語表記(例: Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo)でも検索可。結果には日本郵便準拠のローマ字表記(romaji)を含む。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返却件数の上限(1-50・既定10) | |
| address | Yes | 検索する住所(例: 東京都千代田区丸の内 / Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions acceptable input formats and that results include romaji, but does not disclose behavior for no match, error handling, or any potential side effects. Adequate but not rich.
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 sentences covering purpose, input formats, and output feature. No unnecessary words, well-structured.
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?
No output schema, so description should detail return values. It mentions romaji but not other fields like zip code itself, address components, etc. For a search tool, more detail on result structure would improve completeness.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds example formats but does not significantly extend beyond schema. Baseline 3.
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?
Description clearly states it searches for postal codes from Japanese address strings, handles various formats (kanji, romaji), and interprets to town name. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling by implying address parsing behavior.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs. the sibling tool lookup_zipcode. Context is implied (address search), but no when-not or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!