Skip to main content
Glama

Find Contractors Named in Arms Notices

arms_sales_contractor
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a contractor family in the Arms Sales Register by a substring of its reviewed family name or of a company string as the notices print it. Returns up to 5 families, each with the companies the family includes and the strings as printed; the notices naming it by year delivered and by its leading buyers; the estimated value of the notices naming it (shared, never split), with the notices naming it alone, among the companies a competition will choose from, and since January 20, 2025; the joint ventures it is a parent of; and the side columns, each from its own record: its connected PAC's contributions to federal candidates' committees and its contributions to all committees, by FEC cycle (FEC bulk files; no committee it gave to, candidate or party is named), its 2025 lobbying reports (lda.gov; in-house expenses and outside firms' income are each the report's total for all issues and are never added together), the 2025 inaugural committee's report and the reviewed super PAC donors, with the caption. An empty column is a search result, not a fact about the company. Each row is a proposed sale notified to Congress, and its value is the estimated value the notice prints: never a price, a signed case, a contract or a payment. A company appears only as a notice names it, resolved to the register's reviewed family table: the value of the notices naming a family is shared, never split between the companies a notice names, never added across families and never described as company revenue. The estimated value notified, FARA money, connected-PAC money, lobbying amounts and the inaugural and super PAC records are separate records, shown side by side: never added together and never put in date sequence with a notice. Every answer carries the register's question note: these are proposed sales the Defense Department notified to Congress, as printed in the Federal Register; a notification is not a completed sale, and the records do not show why any sale was proposed or whether it went ahead. Every answer also carries the side-by-side caption, the as-of date, the date the Federal Register copies are printed through, each file's date, the source page on morvs.ai and the licence. Where FEC figures appear, the answer quotes the FEC's restriction on the sale or use of individual contributor information (52 U.S.C. 30111(a)(4)). Institutions only: no official, signer, lobbyist, treasurer, candidate or member of Congress is named, and single-person firms are withheld and appear only as counts. A name that matches only a withheld string answers exactly like a name that matches nothing. No party label is given and no buyer government is characterised.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesRequired case-insensitive substring of a reviewed contractor family name or of a company string as the notices print it; at most 80 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Far exceeds what the annotations declare: it discloses the 5-family result cap, that empty columns are a non-result rather than a negative fact, that estimated values are shared and never split or treated as revenue, that side-column records must not be summed or date-sequenced with notices, withholding behavior for single-person firms, and that withheld-only matches are indistinguishable from no match. Annotations only supply read-only/idempotent/open-world hints, so this context is genuinely additive.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

A single massive paragraph where the front-loaded first sentence is strong but the body repeats the same caveats three or four times ('shared, never split', 'never added together', the notice-is-not-a-sale warning). The critical search semantics are buried under legal and provenance boilerplate with no structural separation.

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?

With no output schema and one parameter, the description carries the full burden and does: it enumerates every returned column group, the provenance and as-of dates for each, the caption and licensing carried with answers, and the FEC restriction quote. An agent knows what comes back and how to interpret it.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema parameter already says case-insensitive substring of family name or printed company string, up to 80 chars. The description largely mirrors that but adds that matching is against the reviewed family name specifically and that up to 5 families come back — modest but real added meaning.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource — look up a contractor family in the Arms Sales Register by a substring of the reviewed family name or of a printed company string — and the return payload is enumerated concretely. It never names the sibling tools it sits beside (arms_sales_buyer, arms_sales_notices), so the agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this versus arms_sales_notices, arms_sales_buyer or arms_sales_summary; the description only describes behavior once called. The 'institutions only' restriction constrains what queries are meaningful but does not route the agent between alternatives.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources