HORIZON SHIELD YAKUMO (verified contractor directory)

加盟店プロフィール取得

get_contractor_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Yakumo の加盟店1件の検証済みプロフィールを返す。member_no(例 No.001)で指定。会社名・地域・対応工種・適正度スコア・誠実度ティア・検証状態・プロフィールURLを返す。金額は含まない。検証が済んでいない店は verification:'pending' を返す(スコアは出さない=fail-closed)。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`member_no`	Yes	加盟店番号(例: No.001)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`roster_read`	No	true = the contractor roster was read successfully; any counts below are real facts about the roster. false = the roster could NOT be read, and this response makes no claim about how many contractors exist. A count of 0 with roster_read true means nobody matched. There is no case where a failed read reports a count.
`pending_count`	No
`roster_source`	No
`verified_count`	No

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedAug 20, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "pending_count": {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "roster_read": {
+    "description": "true = the contractor roster was read successfully; any counts below are real facts about the roster. false = the roster could NOT be read, and this response makes no claim about how many contractors exist. A count of 0 with roster_read true means nobody matched. There is no case where a failed read reports a count.",
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "roster_source": {
+    "enum": [
+      "kv",
+      "published",
+      "none"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "verified_count": {
+    "type": "number"
+  }
+}

Changed1 schema field changedJul 19, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJul 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it specifies that unverified stores return verification:'pending' with no score (fail-closed), and explicitly states pricing is not included. This is exactly the kind of edge-case behavior an agent needs to know. The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint:false) are consistent with the description, and the description enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's side effects and error handling.

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?

The description is three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second lists return fields and exclusions, and the third explains the pending behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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?

The tool has low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists). The description covers the input format, return fields, an explicit exclusion (pricing), and the fail-closed behavior for unverified stores. Given the output schema is present and the tool is simple, this is a complete description that leaves no meaningful gaps.

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?

The input schema already documents the single parameter member_no with an example ('例: No.001'). The description repeats this example and adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 applies. The description correctly aligns with the schema but does not introduce new semantic depth.

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 returns a verified profile for a single contractor specified by member_no. It lists the exact fields returned (company name, region, work types, scores, verification status, URL) and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it returns one contractor's profile and excludes pricing. This is a specific verb+resource+scope formulation that differentiates it from the sibling tools like list_verified_stores.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a single contractor's verified profile by member_no. It also provides useful exclusions ('does not include pricing') and behavior for unverified stores. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use instructions. Clear context is present, but explicit exclusionary guidance is missing.

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

All HORIZON SHIELD YAKUMO (verified contractor directory) tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools are mostly distinct: check_named_contractor handles specific named contractors, find_contractor handles free-text searches, get_contractor_profile retrieves a single profile, list_verified_stores lists stores, mall_overview gives an overview, and how_verification_works explains the process. There is slight overlap between find_contractor and list_verified_stores (both return verified stores), but the former is a natural-language command tower while the latter is a direct filterable list, so the boundary is clear enough.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern: check_named_contractor, find_contractor, get_contractor_profile, list_verified_stores, mall_overview. The exception is how_verification_works, which uses a question-like phrase rather than a verb_noun structure, but it is still readable and consistent in style. Overall, the naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: a verified contractor directory. Each tool serves a distinct function: checking a named contractor, finding contractors, viewing profiles, listing stores, explaining verification, and providing an overview. No tool feels redundant or missing; the count is appropriate for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core workflows: searching, listing, profiling, and explaining the verification process. However, there is no tool for submitting a contractor for verification or for updating store information, which might be expected in a directory that manages verified stores. That said, the server appears to be consumer-facing (for homeowners), so those gaps are acceptable and agents can work around them by directing users to the mall links.

加盟店プロフィール取得

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources