Skip to main content
Glama

MORVS

by ai.morvs.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Find Organisation Super PAC Donors

super_pac_donors_donor
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up an organisation that gave to super PACs or hybrid PACs in the Super PAC Donors Register by name substring, matched against the reviewed name, every name as filed and the reviewed company family, optionally for one FEC cycle (2026 for 2025-26, or 2024 for 2023-24; both when omitted, never added across cycles). Returns up to 5 named organisations, each with its reviewed class and status, its company family and sector, and the parent or group record from an SEC filing where the register cites one; and by cycle, its contributions by recipient super PAC as the FEC lists it, with the committee id, refunds kept apart and never netted, dates as filed and the FEC bulk file date. Beside them, never added or put in sequence: for the company families in the register's side-by-side table, the connected PAC's contributions to federal candidates' committees with its all-committees summary line (FEC), contract obligations by fiscal year (USAspending) and LDA filing counts; the organisation's net donation to the 2025 inaugural committee where it is on both records (Form 13); and ICE and CBP contract obligations for Pay-to-Play Register contractors. An empty column is a search result, not a fact about the organisation. The word nonprofit appears only on a record an exact IRS Exempt Organizations match carries, shown with that record; other issue and social-welfare groups read organisation (status not matched). Super PACs and hybrid PACs are named exactly as the FEC committee master lists them, with their committee ids and no party or candidate label; a contribution to a super PAC is not a contribution to a candidate. Every answer carries the register's question note: these records show contributions reported to the FEC; they do not show what any donor received or intended, and they do not show cause and effect. Individual donors are counted, never named; withheld strings (trusts, holding vehicles, businesses named for a person, names resting on initials, unmatched committees) and unreviewed strings appear only as counts and amounts. A name that matches only a withheld or unreviewed string answers exactly like a name that matches nothing. Every answer quotes the FEC's restriction on the sale or use of individual contributor information (52 U.S.C. 30111(a)(4)) and the FEC bulk file date; the bulk file lags the committees' latest reports.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesRequired case-insensitive organisation or company family name substring, at most 80 characters; named donors only.
cycleNoOptional FEC cycle: 2026 (2025-26) or 2024 (2023-24); both when omitted, never added.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / cycle / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  2026,
-  2024
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / cycle / maximum
      Added value: +2100
    • addedInput schema / properties / cycle / minimum
      Added value: +1900
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the read-only annotations: it explains the five-result cap, cycle handling, how refunds are kept apart, how withheld strings are surfaced only as counts, and the legal restriction quoted in every answer. These are substantive behavioral details an agent would not get from annotations or schema alone.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a dense, paragraph-length run-on with repeated 'never added' framing and legal boilerplate. Much of the content is useful, yet it would benefit from tighter phrasing and clearer separation of matching rules, output shape, and caveats.

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 complex lookup tool with no output schema and only basic annotations, the description supplies the missing context: return shape, matching behavior, cycle scope, withheld-string handling, data freshness caveats, and legal notice requirements. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret results.

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%, but the description adds useful meaning: the name substring is matched against reviewed names, names as filed, and the reviewed company family. It also clarifies that cycles are not added together, which reinforces the schema's optional cycle semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: looking up an organisation that gave to super PACs or hybrid PACs by name substring. It implicitly separates donor-side lookup from the recipient and summary siblings, but it never explicitly names those alternatives, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It gives clear context for use: name substring matching and an optional FEC cycle, with important matching caveats about withheld and unreviewed strings. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus super_pac_donors_recipient or super_pac_donors_summary, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All MORVS toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources