Skip to main content
Glama
nii-research-mcp

nii-research-mcp

by koizumikento

get_project

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a KAKEN project or area record by exact project number, with optional JP prefix, to find the matching research information.

Instructions

Look up an exact KAKEN project or area number, optionally prefixed with JP.

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": {
      "project_number": "<project_number>"
    },
    "name": "get_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_numberYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only input formatting context (the optional JP prefix) and says nothing about not-found behavior, which is the main behavioral question for an exact-key lookup against an external dataset.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no redundant restatement of the name or title. Nothing can be trimmed without losing meaning.

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

Completeness3/5

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

This is a simple one-parameter lookup with full annotation coverage and an output schema, so much of the burden is already off the description. The remaining gap is that a lookup keyed on two nominally different identifier types (project vs. area) gives no indication of whether the returned record shape differs or how a miss is signalled.

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

Parameters4/5

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 the load, and it does reasonably: it names the single parameter's domain (a KAKEN project or area number) and clarifies that a JP prefix is optional, which the regex alone conveys only cryptically. It does not distinguish whether area numbers and project numbers resolve to the same record type.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Look up an exact KAKEN project or area number"), and the word "exact" implicitly separates it from the sibling search_projects/search_records. It stops short of naming the alternative, but an agent can tell a direct key-based fetch from a query tool.

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?

The word "exact" implies this is for when the identifier is already known, versus searching. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, no fallback to search_projects when the number is unknown or partially known, and no guidance on what to do when a lookup misses.

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