Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
tanish-kr

mcp-server-zipcode-jp

by tanish-kr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

mcp-server-zipcode-jp

Es un servidor del Model Context Protocol (MCP) para buscar códigos postales japoneses. Utiliza la API de búsqueda de códigos postales de zipcloud para obtener información de direcciones.

Características

  • Búsqueda de información de direcciones a partir de códigos postales japoneses (7 dígitos)

  • Compatible con el Model Context Protocol (MCP)

Related MCP server: jpzip MCP server

Instalación

npm install
npm run build

Configuración

Uso en Claude Desktop

Añada la siguiente configuración a ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json (macOS).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "zipcode-jp": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/path/to/mcp-server-zipcode-jp/build/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

  • Reemplace /path/to/mcp-server-zipcode-jp con la ruta real donde clonó este proyecto.

Herramientas disponibles

search_zip_code

Busca información de direcciones a partir de un código postal.

Argumentos:

  • zipCode (string): Código postal de 7 dígitos (admite formatos con o sin guion)

Ejemplo de respuesta:

{
  "results": [
    {
      "address1": "東京都",
      "address2": "新宿区",
      "address3": "西新宿",
      "kana1": "ﾄｳｷｮｳﾄ",
      "kana2": "ｼﾝｼﾞｭｸｸ",
      "kana3": "ﾆｼｼﾝｼﾞｭｸ",
      "prefcode": "13",
      "zipcode": "1600023"
    }
  ],
  "status": 200,
  "message": null
}

Desarrollo

Construcción

npm run build

Licencia

ISC

Available Tools

1 tool
search_zip_codeC

Search zip code data

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zipCodeYes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Search' without indicating whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or what the response looks like. Significant behavioral gaps exist.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise (4 words), which is efficient but arguably under-specified. It is front-loaded but lacks structure or additional details that could be provided without harming conciseness. Balanced between brevity and completeness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what kind of data is returned, error conditions, or any usage notes. The agent is left with many unknowns.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter 'zipCode' lacks documentation in the schema. The description adds minimal value by implying the input is the search term, but it does not specify format, country, or constraints. Some meaning is added beyond the raw schema.

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 states 'Search zip code data', which clearly indicates the verb (search) and the resource (zip code data). It is specific enough to convey the tool's primary function, though slightly vague as 'zip code data' could be more precise. With no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed.

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, nor any context about prerequisite conditions, input formats, or use cases. The agent receives no help in deciding if this tool is appropriate.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool updatev1.0.0
    • First observedsearch_zip_code
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no risk of ambiguity. The single tool's purpose is clear and distinct by default.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'search_zip_code' follows a consistent verb_noun pattern, which is clear and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

A single tool for a zip code server feels minimal. While search might be sufficient, the scope is thin compared to typical CRUD or lookup services for zip codes.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface appears incomplete for a comprehensive zip code service. Missing operations like get_by_code, reverse lookup, or list prefectures limit the agent's ability to perform related tasks.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers