Skip to main content
Glama

List Migrant Program Award Terminations

migrant_programs_terminations
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the termination records in the Migrant Program Money Register, optionally filtered by agency (a name substring as the record or its program names it, or a short form: FEMA, DHS, USCIS, ICE, CBP, HHS, ACF, ORR, State, PRM, DOJ or EOIR, each resolved to the agency names the data gives; a short form the data does not name returns no rows and the answer lists the agency names in the data), program key and recipient name substring; at most 25 rows, with the full count and the count by record type. Three record types, each verbatim with its date and amount as the record gives it: rows of HHS's TAGGS terminated-grants list, in HHS's own words and columns (total obligated, expended, payment and unliquidated, labelled as HHS labels them) with the list's date; termination and recipient-request texts from the USAspending award records, with the agency's exact words, the action type as filed, the action's obligation and any executive-order tag exactly as the record shows it; and FEMA's Shelter and Services de-obligations of February 10 to 12, 2025, by recipient, each labelled the record gives no reason. A $0 termination action is not the money: any de-obligation is a separate, later action. Terminations appear only in the agency's exact words with their dates; where the record gives no words the answer says the record gives no reason, and an executive-order tag appears only as the record shows it. Governments are kept apart from organisations: every amount names its recipient class from the register's reviewed table, never a single NGO total. A recipient is called an IRS-listed exempt organisation only where the register's IRS EO BMF match stands (by the reviewed EIN, or by exact name and state where the register marks the match by rule), shown with that record; other organisations read organisation, IRS status not matched. The tools never call a recipient nonprofit or faith-based, and no recipient is classified by religion. Every answer carries the register's question note: these records show federal awards and the agencies' own termination records; they do not show how any recipient used the money or why an award was made or ended beyond what the record says. Every answer also carries the side-by-side caption, the as-of and retrieval dates, each file's date, the source page on morvs.ai and the licence. Institutions only: no beneficiary, staff member, executive or sole proprietor is named; withheld recipients and records appear only as counts and amounts. A name that matches only a withheld string answers exactly like a name that matches nothing.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agencyNoOptional agency name substring as the record or its program names it, or a short form (FEMA, DHS, HHS, ACF, ORR, State, PRM, DOJ, EOIR); at most 80 characters.
programNoOptional program key: orr_uc, orr_refugee_formula, orr_refugee_matching, orr_refugee_discretionary, orr_contracts, state_rp, fema_ssp or eoir_legal_access.
recipientNoOptional case-insensitive recipient name substring as the record names 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?

The description goes far beyond the annotations, disclosing the three record types, verbatim-wording requirements, $0 action handling, recipient-classification rules, withholding behavior, disclaimer text, source/license metadata, and the maximum row count. These details tell the agent exactly how results will be shaped and what the answer will include. The read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations are consistent with a listing tool.

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?

The description is a dense, run-on block with very long sentences, repeated qualifiers like 'exactly as the record shows it,' and multiple caveats packed together. The purpose is front-loaded, but the lack of bullet structure and repeated phrasing makes it harder to scan than necessary for a three-parameter listing tool.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values, row limits, counts by record type, date and amount presentation, source metadata, disclaimer text, and withholding behavior. For a complex multi-source listing tool, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to call and interpret it correctly.

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 description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning: agency short forms are resolved to agency names the data uses, unrecognized short forms return no rows with an agency-name listing, and recipient matching is by name substring. Program-key semantics are mostly left to the enum schema, but the agency-filter explanation adds real value beyond the 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 clearly states the specific verb and resource: listing termination records in the Migrant Program Money Register, with optional agency, program, and recipient filters. It also specifies the 25-row limit and count reporting, making the tool's scope clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling migrant_programs_program, migrant_programs_recipient, or migrant_programs_summary, leaving that differentiation implicit.

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 explains filter behavior and edge cases, such as short-form agency names that return no rows and withheld-name matching, but it never states when an agent should choose this termination-record tool over the program, recipient, or summary siblings. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative-tool routing instructions.

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