補助・助成.jp

申請案件を開始・再開する

start_application

制度IDから開始・再開する。既定は既存の1件を再開。複数なら needs_selection の候補を利用者に示し case_id で選ぶ。既存を残して空の原本から別下書きを作ると明示された場合だけ new_draft=true（case_id は原本のある案件）。記入値・PDF配置は継承しない。曖昧なやり直しでは新規作成・削除をしない。forms の writable=true は inspect_form→fill_form で記入できる。自治体は official_forms を示し、利用者が求めたら import_official_form で取り込む（.doc/.xls 等は upload_url）。 case_id=null は様式なし・取得失敗等。reason・next_steps に従い、同じ要求を繰り返さない。 preparation があれば公募要領の根拠ページを読む。writable=false（旧形式・暗号化や入力欄つきのPDF等）は original_url で原本を案内する。

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": {
      "subsidy_id": "<subsidy_id>"
    },
    "name": "start_application"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`case_id`	No
`new_draft`	No
`subsidy_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / case_id

Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

addedInput schema / properties / new_draft

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavioral details: default resumption, non-inheritance of filled values and PDF layout for new drafts, no create/delete on ambiguous retries, handling of case_id=null, and the need to follow reason and next_steps. It clarifies that the tool is not read-only and is non-destructive in normal use, consistent with the annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core start/resume behavior and default, which helps the agent orient quickly. However, it is long and densely packs multiple workflow branches, so although most sentences earn their place, it is not as tight as a 5-level definition.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation-like tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers default behavior, selection, explicit new drafts, failure/null handling, next-step guidance, form writability, official-form import, and non-writable originals. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden and explains all three parameters meaningfully: subsidy_id supplies the subsidy identifier, case_id is used to choose among candidates and can be null for no-form or failure cases, and new_draft has a narrow explicit-only creation meaning with stated non-inheritance behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: start or resume an application case from a subsidy ID. It also distinguishes the default behavior (resume one existing case) from alternative behaviors such as selecting among multiple candidates or creating a new draft, and it names related sibling tools like inspect_form, fill_form, and import_official_form.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use rules: default resume, multiple candidates via needs_selection and case_id, new_draft only when explicitly requested, and no new creation or deletion for ambiguous redo requests. It also routes the agent to specific alternatives for writable forms, official forms, and non-writable originals.

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

All 補助・助成.jp tools Inspect

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

Need Help?