A
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceProvides Japanese postal code to address lookup functionality that can be integrated with AI assistants and other MCP clients.
3
MIT
mcp-server-zipcode-jp
by tanish-kr
mcp-server-zipcode-jp
日本の郵便番号を検索するための Model Context Protocol (MCP) サーバです。 zipcloud の郵便番号検索 API を使用して、住所情報を取得します。
特徴
日本の郵便番号（7桁）から住所情報を検索
Model Context Protocol (MCP) に準拠
Related MCP server: jpzip MCP server
インストール
npm install
npm run build設定
Claude Desktop での使用
~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json (macOS) に以下の設定を追加してください。
{
"mcpServers": {
"zipcode-jp": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/mcp-server-zipcode-jp/build/index.js"]
}
}
}※ /path/to/mcp-server-zipcode-jp は、このプロジェクトをクローンした実際のパスに置き換えてください。
利用可能なツール
search_zip_code
郵便番号から住所情報を検索します。
引数:
zipCode(string): 7桁の郵便番号（ハイフンあり/なし両対応）
レスポンス例:
{
"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
}開発
ビルド
npm run buildライセンス
ISC
Available Tools
1 toolsearch_zip_codeC
Search zip code data
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zipCode | Yes |
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 tool update
v1.0.0- First observed
search_zip_code
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
Related MCP Connectors
日本の住所⇄郵便番号を変換。表記ゆれも吸収。Japan address ⇄ postal code, handles messy input. Free tier, no API key.
Normalize and verify Japanese postal addresses into structured fields for agents.
Zippopotam MCP — wraps Zippopotam.us ZIP/postal code API (free, no auth)
Verify Japanese companies, invoice-issuer registrations and addresses against government open data.
Related MCP Servers
jpzip MCP serverofficial
AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables to look up Japanese postal codes, convert zipcodes to addresses, search addresses by query, and list cities in a prefecture using the jpzip dataset.411 npmMIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceJapanese postal code ⇄ address lookup with bundled official data — fully offline, no API key.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceNormalizes and verifies Japanese postal addresses, splitting messy strings into structured fields with geolocation and verification.1MIT