jp-statistics-mcp

search_regions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find region codes by name, kana reading, or code, or omit the query to browse regions. Use limit and offset to page through Japanese statistical region results.

Instructions

Find region codes by name, kana reading or code. Omit query to browse.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_regions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`offset`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read operation with open-world scope. The description adds the meaningful browse-mode behavior when the query is omitted, but does not discuss pagination, result volume, or other operational details.

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 definition is two short sentences with no wasted wording. The core lookup capability is front-loaded and the browse behavior follows immediately.

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?

For a simple search tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential query semantics and the browse case. The remaining gap is that limit and offset are left entirely to the schema despite having no schema descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning itself. It explains the important 'query' parameter well by saying it accepts name, kana reading, or code, and that omission triggers browsing, but it does not explain 'limit' or 'offset' at all.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Find region codes') and identifies the accepted lookup keys (name, kana reading, code). It is clearly about regions rather than the sibling search tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with an alternative region lookup method.

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?

It gives one useful usage condition: omit the query to browse. It does not state when to prefer this tool over sibling search tools or when a non-search lookup would be more appropriate, so guidance is present but incomplete.

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

Deploy Server