NetGrant — Canadian Grants
Server Details
Search 1,600+ Canadian grants, accelerators, and pitch competitions without leaving your AI.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Score is being calculated. Check back soon.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_opportunity_detailsAInspect
Fetch full details for a single opportunity by ID. Use this after search_opportunities when:
The user wants to know more about a specific match
You need the full eligibility text to confirm a strong-match claim
The user wants to draft an application — you need the requirements
The response includes all fields including the full body text and eligibility criteria. Present the eligibility as a checklist when relevant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Opportunity UUID returned from search_opportunities |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the response includes all fields including full body text and eligibility criteria. It does not mention any destructive or side effects, which is appropriate for a read-only fetch operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four sentences long with no unnecessary words. The first sentence fronts the core purpose, followed by bullet-like conditions, and a clear statement of what the response contains. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and low complexity, the description fully covers purpose, usage guidelines, and response contents. No gaps are apparent for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter 'id' described as 'Opportunity UUID returned from search_opportunities'. The description adds context by tying the parameter to the sibling tool and specifying that it identifies a single opportunity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'full details for a single opportunity', and the method 'by ID'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'search_opportunities' by positioning this tool as a follow-up for detailed exploration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit conditions for use: 'after search_opportunities', 'when the user wants to know more about a specific match', 'to confirm a strong-match claim', and 'to draft an application'. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_opportunitiesAInspect
Search Canadian funding opportunities (grants, competitions, accelerators, tax credits, wage subsidies, loans, events). Returns JSON.
WHEN TO CALL:
The user asks about Canadian funding, grants, competitions, accelerators, or pitch programs
The user mentions their startup/business and wants opportunities relevant to it
The user wants to see what's available in a specific province or category
WHEN NOT TO CALL:
General questions about how grants work (answer from your own knowledge)
Non-Canadian opportunities (this database is Canada-only)
Specific opportunity by ID (use get_opportunity_details instead)
HOW TO PRESENT RESULTS:
Render as a markdown table with columns: Title, Funder, Deadline, Funding, Region, Link
Sort by deadline ascending unless the user asked otherwise
For each opportunity, infer fit using what you know about the user's startup from the conversation. Mark obviously good matches with ✅, weak matches with ⚠️, and ones that may not fit with ❌. Be honest — do not mark everything ✅.
If a deadline is within 14 days, prefix the row with 🚨.
Always include the URL as a clickable markdown link.
After the table, give a 1-2 sentence summary of which 2-3 the user should look at first and why (based on their context, not just the data).
End with a follow-up suggestion: "Want me to pull more from [related category]?" or "Want me to draft an outline for [top match]?"
DATA NOTES:
"Rolling" deadline means no fixed close date.
Funding amount may be a range or "varies".
Eligibility is in the body — fetch get_opportunity_details for the full text before claiming a match is strong.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Free-text search across title and body. Pass the user's actual keywords (e.g. "AI", "agriculture", "women-led"). | |
| region | No | Optional province code: ON, BC, QC, AB, MB, SK, NS, NB, NL, PE, YT, NT, NU. Use Federal for nation-wide programs. | |
| category | No | Optional: grant, competition, tax_credit, wage_subsidy, loan, event, workshop, conference, other | |
| max_results | No | Default 20. Increase only if the user wants a comprehensive sweep. | |
| min_funding | No | Optional. Only return opportunities with max_funding_amount >= this value (in CAD). Use when the user specifies a minimum funding threshold. | |
| exclude_expired | No | Default true. Set false only if the user explicitly wants to see past-deadline or historical opportunities. | |
| deadline_within_days | No | Optional. Only return opportunities with a deadline within this many days from today. Use for "closing soon" queries. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: returns JSON, data notes on rolling deadlines and funding ranges, presentation instructions including fit marking (✅⚠️❌) and deadline alerts (🚨), and a note that eligibility requires fetching full details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (WHEN TO CALL, WHEN NOT TO CALL, HOW TO PRESENT RESULTS, DATA NOTES) and front-loaded with purpose. Every section adds value, though slightly verbose for a search tool; still appropriate for the complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers usage context, presentation details, data caveats, and links to sibling tool, leaving little ambiguity for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining when to use optional parameters (e.g., min_funding for threshold, max_results for comprehensive sweep, exclude_expired for historical, deadline_within_days for closing soon), which goes beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches Canadian funding opportunities across many specific types (grants, competitions, etc.) and returns JSON. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_opportunity_details' by noting that for a specific ID, that tool should be used instead.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit 'WHEN TO CALL' and 'WHEN NOT TO CALL' sections provide clear context on when to invoke this tool vs. using general knowledge or the sibling tool. This is excellent guidance for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!