Skip to main content
Glama

NetGrant — Canadian funding

by ca.netgrant

eligibility_check

Pull a single opportunity's eligibility criteria alongside a description of the applicant, so you can judge whether they qualify. Use when the user asks "do I qualify for this?" or "does this apply to me?".

The response contains the opportunity's eligibility text + key fields and echoes the applicant description — it does NOT decide for you. Read the eligibility, compare it against the applicant, then give a clear verdict (Likely eligible / Partially / Unlikely) with the specific criteria that pass or fail and any criteria you can't determine from the description.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesOpportunity UUID to check eligibility for.
applicant_descriptionYesThe applicant's details: sector, stage, location/province, incorporation status, size, demographics — whatever is relevant to eligibility.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the response contains raw eligibility data and echoes applicant description, and clarifies that the tool does not make a decision, telling the agent to read, compare, and give a verdict.

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?

Two paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose and usage, every sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but still concise for the information conveyed.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the response content and how to proceed. All needed context is provided for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description reinforces but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool pulls eligibility criteria and applicant description to judge qualification. Distinguishes from siblings like compare_opportunities and get_opportunity_details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use: 'do I qualify for this?' and provides guidance on how to use the response, including what not to expect (tool does not decide). Implicitly differentiates from siblings.

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

All NetGrant — Canadian funding toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: searching, fetching details, comparing, checking eligibility, and subscribing. No overlap in functionality, and the descriptions guide the agent on when to use each.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_opportunities, get_opportunity_details), making them predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the surface is well-scoped for the domain of Canadian funding. Each tool addresses a distinct user need without unnecessary overhead.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover the core workflow: search, view details, compare, check eligibility, and subscribe to alerts. Missing minor operations like editing a subscription, but overall the surface is complete for the stated purpose.

Resources