Skip to main content
Glama

Awardia

by app.awardia
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

award_history

Read-only

Free during beta. Who won past public contracts, at what price, against how many bidders, and by which procedure (open call, prior consultation, direct award). Filter by buyer, winner, CPV sector and region. For Portugal covers every public contract (Portal BASE), incl. small direct awards. Returns summary stats, top winners and recent awards.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buyerNoPart of the contracting authority's name
limitNoMax results, default 10, max 25
sinceNoISO date, e.g. 2024-01-01
regionNoPlace name: district or municipality (e.g. 'Lisboa', 'Sintra'). Matches the work location or the buyer's name; most precise for Portugal.
winnerNoPart of the winning company's name
countriesNoISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes where the work is performed, e.g. ["PT","ES"]
cpv_prefixesNoCPV code prefixes; '45' = construction, '72' = IT services, '3021' = computers

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / region
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Place name: district or municipality (e.g. 'Lisboa', 'Sintra'). Matches the work location or the buyer's name; most precise for Portugal.",
+  "maxLength": 100,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new context: it is free during beta, Portugal coverage is exhaustive (including small direct awards), and it returns summary stats, top winners and recent awards. It lacks rate/latency or per-country coverage caveats, but it adds real value beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three dense sentences with no filler, each carrying distinct information (cost, capability, filters, coverage, output). The leading 'Free during beta' is slightly odd as the very first token but is short and front-loads a material constraint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (summary stats, top winners, recent awards), which the agent otherwise could not know. It also signals coverage asymmetry (Portugal exhaustive vs. other countries unstated), making it largely sufficient for a zero-required-parameter search tool, though multi-country behavior is left ambiguous.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents buyer, winner, cpv_prefixes, region, countries, since and limit. The description restates four of those filter axes (buyer, winner, CPV sector, region) without adding syntax or matching-behavior detail beyond the schema, so it neither helps nor harms.

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 states a precise verb+resource: past awarded public contracts, including winner, price, bidder count, and award procedure. The 'past/awarded' framing implicitly separates it from sibling tools such as search_tenders (open tenders) and expiring_contracts, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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 communicates when the tool applies via coverage and filtering context ('For Portugal covers every public contract (Portal BASE), incl. small direct awards') and lists the filter axes (buyer, winner, CPV sector, region). However it names no explicit alternative tool or when-not condition, so guidance stops short of full routing clarity.

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

All Awardia 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