A
license-
qualityD
maintenanceMCP server that provides access to the Kenall postal code API for Japanese address lookups, enabling lookup by postal code and search by address.
MIT
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.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 3.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct and complementary purposes: one translates zip code to address, the other translates address to zip code. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern (lookup_zipcode, search_address) in snake_case, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With only two tools, the server is minimal but perfectly scoped for its purpose of bidirectional Japanese postal code conversion. Each tool earns its place.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface fully covers the domain: lookup_zipcode for zip-to-address and search_address for address-to-zip. No obvious gaps are present for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
2 toolslookup_zipcodeBInspect
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。
ParametersJSON Schema
| 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
B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions input format flexibility and that the result includes romaji, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, error handling for invalid zip codes, or any rate limits. The description adds some value but is insufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides format and result details. It is front-loaded with essential information, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return format comprehensively. It only mentions that the result includes romaji, omitting other fields (e.g., address in kanji, city, etc.). For a simple lookup tool, this is incomplete and may require additional documentation.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'zipcode' already describing acceptable formats. The tool description repeats this information and adds nothing new about the parameter. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter semantics.
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?
The description clearly states a specific verb-resource pair: 'reverse lookup address from zip code'. It also specifies accepted formats (with or without hyphen, full-width digits) and mentions that the result includes romaji. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_address' which likely searches by address.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a zip code and need an address, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the sibling tool as an alternative. The sibling's name 'search_address' provides some context, but the description itself offers no usage guidance beyond the primary function.
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。
ParametersJSON Schema
| 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
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description adds some behavioral context beyond the schema: it interprets up to town names even with full addresses, and supports English notation. However, it does not disclose what happens on no match, ambiguous inputs, or any error/rate limit behavior. The description is adequate for a simple read-only search tool but leaves gaps in failure handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: three sentences immediately convey the tool's purpose, supported formats, and a key output feature (romaji). Every sentence provides value without redundancy or unnecessary prose.
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?
Given no output schema, the description mentions that results include Japan Post-compliant romaji notation, which adds important completeness. It covers supported input formats (full address, English) and parameter constraints. However, it does not describe the overall result structure (e.g., postal code field, address components), leaving minor gaps for an agent choosing this tool.
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?
The schema already describes both parameters completely (100% coverage). The description adds overarching context about the address field's flexibility (including building names, romaji support) but does not add specific parameter-level details beyond the schema. The limit parameter is sufficiently described in the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: searching for postal codes from Japanese address strings. It specifies it can handle full addresses including street numbers and building names, and even supports romaji/English notation. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool lookup_zipcode, which likely handles direct zip code lookup.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: for address strings (including full addresses) and also for English/romaji notation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like lookup_zipcode, though the contrast is implied. The examples given (東京都千代田区丸の内 / Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo) serve as usage guidance.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityDmaintenanceProvides Japanese postal code to address lookup functionality that can be integrated with AI assistants and other MCP clients.3MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server that searches Japanese addresses and returns their locations as polygons or points using the open 住所LOD dataset, enabling geocoding, reverse geocoding, batch GeoJSON export, and map visualization.8MIT
- FlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for Japanese address and parcel lookup using ReverseGeoJP and ChibanJP APIs, enabling AI agents to convert coordinates to addresses and vice versa.4