Search Japanese curriculum scope data by subject, school stage, domain, or keyword to find matching MEXT curriculum codes and learning items.
教育範囲データから、教科・学校段階・領域・キーワードで項目を検索します。公式データでは学習指導要領コードも結果に含まれます。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | 検索語。省略時はフィルタのみ | |
| stage | No | 学校段階 | |
| domain | No | 領域名。例: 図形、関数、文法 | |
| subject | No | 教科・科目名。例: 数学、数学II、英語 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one non-obvious output trait — that official data includes 学習指導要領コード in results — but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or the read-only nature of the operation, which the agent must infer.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the search scope and closed with the distinguishing output detail. No filler or repetition of structured fields.
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?
It covers what is searched and one output variation, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say more about result shape, result count, and read-only behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a five-parameter search tool.
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?
With 80% schema description coverage, the schema already documents query, stage, domain and subject. The description restates those same dimensions without adding format, syntax, or matching-behavior detail, and never mentions the limit parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb (検索 / search) and resource (教育範囲データ / curriculum scope data), then enumerates the filter dimensions (教科・学校段階・領域・キーワード). An agent can tell it apart from siblings like classify_knowledge_scope or get_prerequisites, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the word 検索; the useful detail that filters alone work when the query is omitted lives in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.