japan-real-estate-intel

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

ファミリー適性評価

assess_family_friendly_score

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate family-friendliness of neighborhoods in Japan using scores for education, safety, and healthcare. Covers 10 prefectures.

Instructions

Assess family-friendliness: education, safety, healthcare across 3 axes. 10 prefectures. | ファミリー向け適性評価。教育・安全・医療の3軸で住宅適地を総合評価。全10都道府県。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`area`	Yes	エリア
`latlng`	No
`address`	No	具体的な住所（任意）
`childAge`	No		all
`prefecture`	No	都道府県名（和名/英名/ISO 3166-2 コード対応）	愛知県
`neighborhood`	No	町丁目（例: '名駅南1丁目'）。v2.4 では町丁目レベル実データに対応（対応都道府県のみ）

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`safety`	Yes
`keyInsights`	Yes
`pricePerSqm`	Yes
`overallScore`	Yes	ファミリー適性総合スコア
`schoolDistrict`	Yes
`recommendations`	Yes
`assetValueFactor`	Yes	教育環境による資産価値係数(%)
`disasterRiskScore`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedv8.0.0Jul 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "assetValueFactor": {
+      "description": "教育環境による資産価値係数(%)",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "disasterRiskScore": {
+      "maximum": 100,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "keyInsights": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "overallScore": {
+      "description": "ファミリー適性総合スコア",
+      "maximum": 100,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "pricePerSqm": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "recommendations": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "safety": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "crimeRate": {
+          "description": "犯罪発生率（件/千人）",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "crimeScore": {
+          "description": "安全性スコア（高い=安全）",
+          "maximum": 100,
+          "minimum": 0,
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "dominantCrimeType": {
+          "description": "主要犯罪類型",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "crimeScore",
+        "crimeRate",
+        "dominantCrimeType"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "schoolDistrict": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "educationScore": {
+          "description": "教育環境スコア",
+          "maximum": 100,
+          "minimum": 0,
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "elementarySchool": {
+          "description": "学区の小学校名",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "juniorHighSchool": {
+          "description": "学区の中学校名",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "nearbySchoolCount": {
+          "description": "半径2km内の学校数",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "universityAdvancementRate": {
+          "description": "大学進学率(%)",
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "elementarySchool",
+        "juniorHighSchool",
+        "educationScore",
+        "universityAdvancementRate",
+        "nearbySchoolCount"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "overallScore",
+    "schoolDistrict",
+    "safety",
+    "assetValueFactor",
+    "disasterRiskScore",
+    "pricePerSqm",
+    "keyInsights",
+    "recommendations"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedv7.0.0Jul 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedInput schema / properties / latlng / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv6.16.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the three axes and prefecture scope but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response format or performance limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two short sentences (English and Japanese) that efficiently convey the core purpose. However, the bilingual repetition is slightly redundant; a single clear statement might be more concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 6 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to use the various location parameters (area vs prefecture vs neighborhood) or what the output contains. The Japanese translation adds no new context.

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 67%, covering most parameters. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides; for example, it does not explain how area, prefecture, or neighborhood interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool assesses family-friendliness across three axes (education, safety, healthcare) for housing suitability, limited to 10 prefectures. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like assess_exterior_visuals or assess_property_risk, which target different aspects.

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 description implies the tool is for evaluating family-friendliness, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like analyze_commute_accessibility or predict_corporate_demand. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sugukurukabe/japan-real-estate-intel-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server