Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Yaizu Smart City MCP Server

Yaizu Smart City MCP Server

by moma1992
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

scrape_api_docs

Extract and save API documentation from Yaizu City's API catalog for municipal services and smart city data access.

Instructions

焼津市APIカタログから最新のAPIドキュメントをスクレイピングして保存します。 認証情報は.envファイルから自動的に読み込まれます。

Returns: str: スクレイピング結果のサマリー

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": "scrape_api_docs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that authentication is handled via .env files and that it saves the scraped data, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what 'saves' entails (e.g., file location, overwrite behavior).

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is brief and front-loaded with the main action in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful authentication context, and the 'Returns' section clarifies output. It could be slightly more structured but avoids waste.

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?

Given no annotations, 0 parameters, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the action and authentication, but lacks context on sibling tool differentiation and detailed behavioral aspects like what 'saves' means, leaving some gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.

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 clearly states the tool scrapes API documentation from a specific source (Yaizu City API catalog) and saves it, using the verb 'scrape' and resource 'API documentation'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_api_docs' or 'get_api_details', which might have overlapping functionality.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 like 'search_api_docs' or 'get_api_details'. It mentions authentication is handled automatically, but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusions for usage.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools