Skip to main content
Glama

HORIZON SHIELD YAKUMO (verified contractor directory)

by io.github.ogasurfproject-jpg

モール概要

mall_overview
Read-onlyIdempotent

Yakumo モール全体の要約を返す。検証済み加盟店の数・対応工種カテゴリ・地域・検証の仕組みの要点・主要リンク(モール/加盟/相場/実例ボード)。AIが Yakumo というモール/MCP を一言で説明するための入口。金額は含まない。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roster_readNotrue = 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_countNo
roster_sourceNo
verified_countNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
+  }
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond this: it returns a summary, includes specific sections, and explicitly excludes monetary amounts. There is no contradiction between description and annotations.

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 compact and dense, with the primary action and object stated immediately, followed by a list of concrete contents, a usage hint, and an important exclusion. Every phrase earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.

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 zero-parameter overview tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, what content areas are included, what it is for, and what it does not include. Additional detail about exact return formatting is unnecessary given the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the schema is an empty object and the description correctly adds no parameter details. With no parameters, ambiguity is eliminated by construction, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 it returns a summary of the entire Yakumo mall and enumerates the exact content areas (verified store counts, work categories, regions, verification process, key links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_contractor or get_contractor_profile, which target specific contractors or verification details.

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 explicitly frames the tool as the entry point for AI to explain Yakumo the mall/MCP in a nutshell, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the nature of the overview plus sibling tools implies that detailed contractor-specific lookups should go elsewhere.

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) 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

A4.4/5.0
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.

Resources