e-Stat MCP

post_dataset

Register, update, or delete datasets on e-Stat by specifying stats data ID, dataset name, and conditions. Choose process mode E for register/update or D for deletion.

Instructions

データセットを登録する.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`conditions`	No	取得条件（cdCatXX, cdTime, cdArea などを辞書で指定）
`data_set_id`	No	更新・削除対象のデータセットID（削除時に必須）
`dataset_name`	No	データセット名
`process_mode`	No	処理モード（E: 登録・更新、D: 削除）	E
`stats_data_id`	No	統計表ID（登録・更新時に必須）
`open_specified`	No	公開可否（e-Stat APIのopenSpecified）

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed15 schema fields changedv0.4.0Aug 25, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / conditions / description

Added value: +"取得条件（cdCatXX, cdTime, cdArea などを辞書で指定）"

addedInput schema / properties / data_set_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "更新・削除対象のデータセットID（削除時に必須）"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / dataset_name / anyOf

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

addedInput schema / properties / dataset_name / default
```
Added value: +null
```
addedInput schema / properties / dataset_name / description
```
Added value: +"データセット名"
```
removedInput schema / properties / dataset_name / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

removedInput schema / properties / description

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null
-}

addedInput schema / properties / open_specified

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "公開可否（e-Stat APIのopenSpecified）"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / process_mode

Added value: +{
+  "default": "E",
+  "description": "処理モード（E: 登録・更新、D: 削除）",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / stats_data_id / anyOf

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

addedInput schema / properties / stats_data_id / default
```
Added value: +null
```

addedInput schema / properties / stats_data_id / description

Added value: +"統計表ID（登録・更新時に必須）"

removedInput schema / properties / stats_data_id / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

removedInput schema / required

Removed value: -[
-  "dataset_name",
-  "stats_data_id"
-]

First observedDec 8, 2025

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation ('登録' register) but fails to mention that the tool can also update or delete, and does not disclose requirements like stats_data_id being mandatory for registration/update or data_set_id for deletion. The agent is left with minimal warning of side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It conveys only a vague purpose without operational details, so it is closer to under-specification than efficient conciseness. No effort is made to front-load key constraints or mode info.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 6 parameters, multiple modes (E/D), and likely side effects, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain the process_mode semantics, required fields per mode, or any output (despite output schema existing). The agent lacks essential context to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides. Per calibration, baseline is 3 when coverage exceeds 80%, so this score is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('データセットを登録する', register a dataset), which is clear enough to identify the tool as a write operation. However, it omits that the tool also handles update and delete based on process_mode, and it does not differentiate from the sibling get_* tools beyond the obvious write intent.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions for registration vs update vs deletion, and does not refer to any sibling tools. An agent would have no idea what triggers this tool over get_dataset or others.

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

Deploy Server