Query Japanese government statistics using keywords to retrieve relevant statistical tables across 17 fields, including population, GDP, and employment.
キーワードで統計情報を検索する.
より簡単に統計表を検索するためのヘルパーツール。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 取得件数（デフォルト20件） | |
| keyword | Yes | 検索キーワード（例: "人口", "GDP", "雇用"） |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / keyword / descriptionAdded value: +"検索キーワード（例: \"人口\", \"GDP\", \"雇用\"）"Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"取得件数（デフォルト20件）"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that. Beyond that, the description adds minimal behavioral context – 'helper tool for searching statistical tables more easily' hints at simplification but does not disclose return format, sorting, pagination, or any side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the bar is lower, but the description still lacks substantive behavioral detail.
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 short sentences, no redundancy, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every word contributes; it is appropriately concise without being under-specified.
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?
Given the simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, output schema present), the description covers the basic 'what' but lacks usage guidance. An agent could call it correctly, but might not know when to prefer it over get_stats_list_csv or get_dataset. With output schema present, return-value details are not required, so a 3 is fair.
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 description coverage is 100% – both 'keyword' and 'limit' have descriptions in the schema. The description itself does not mention any parameter details, so it adds no value beyond the schema. 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 states a clear verb ('search') and resource ('statistical information by keyword'), making the primary function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_stats_list, which could also return statistical data, so it falls short of a 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_stats_list, get_dataset). It only calls itself a 'helper tool' without explaining the specific scenario or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.