Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by io.github.localgov-jp

get_municipality_grants

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all subsidies for a single municipality by JIS X 0402 6-digit code. Differentiator: J-Grants public API has zero municipal-level entries; LocalGov.jp covers 1,627 municipalities (target 1,718). Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax records (1-200, default 50)
municipality_codeYesJIS X 0402 6-digit municipality code

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
totalYesTotal grants for the municipality
municipality_codeYesEcho of the requested code

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / source_url_shared
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "True when source_url is a category/index page shared by other grants. When true, cite as \"LocalGov.jp listing\" or pair with the LocalGov.jp _source for per-grant precision.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / source_url_sibling_count
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Number of other grants pointing at the same source_url (0 means dedicated per-grant page).",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / items / items / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "_source",
-  "_attribution",
-  "_license",
-  "id",
-  "title",
-  "issuer",
-  "municipality_code",
-  "prefecture",
-  "category",
-  "summary",
-  "eligibility",
-  "amount_max_jpy",
-  "deadline",
-  "source_url"
-]New value: +[
+  "_source",
+  "_attribution",
+  "_license",
+  "id",
+  "title",
+  "issuer",
+  "municipality_code",
+  "prefecture",
+  "category",
+  "summary",
+  "eligibility",
+  "amount_max_jpy",
+  "deadline",
+  "source_url",
+  "source_url_shared",
+  "source_url_sibling_count"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing data coverage limitations (J-Grants vs LocalGov.jp) and that the tool is free. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second provides differentiator. No redundant words; information is front-loaded and efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple list tool with two parameters, one required, and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, scope, data coverage, and cost. It is complete without needing to detail return values.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond mentioning the code format, which matches the schema pattern.

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 lists all subsidies for a single municipality using a specific 6-digit code, with a differentiator that contrasts with other data sources. This sets it apart from siblings.

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 provides a differentiator but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_municipal_subsidies or search_subsidies. It implies use when data for a single municipality is needed, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative references.

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

All mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: comparing subsidies across municipalities, recommending practitioners, finding supplementary grants, listing grants for a municipality, getting subsidy details, searching subsidies, subscribing to changes, and verifying receipts. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., compare_municipal_subsidies, find_practitioner, search_subsidies). No deviations or mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a server focused on Japanese subsidies. Each tool serves a distinct function without being excessive or insufficient.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle for subsidy data: search, get details, list by municipality, compare across municipalities, find supplementary grants, practitioner recommendations, subscription for changes, and receipt verification. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.

Resources