Skip to main content
Glama

NetGrant — Canadian funding

search_opportunities

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.

  • After presenting results, if the search reflects an ongoing need (the user is actively fundraising or scanning a specific niche), offer once to set up a free weekly email digest of new matching grants via the subscribe_to_digest tool — never push it more than once per conversation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoFree-text search across title and body. Pass the user's actual keywords (e.g. "AI", "agriculture", "women-led").
regionNoOptional province code: ON, BC, QC, AB, MB, SK, NS, NB, NL, PE, YT, NT, NU. Use Federal for nation-wide programs.
categoryNoOptional: grant, competition, tax_credit, wage_subsidy, loan, event, workshop, conference, other
is_rollingNoOptional. true = only rolling/no-fixed-deadline opportunities; false = only those with a fixed deadline. Omit to include both.
max_fundingNoOptional. Only return opportunities with max_funding_amount <= this value (in CAD). Use with min_funding to bound a funding range, or alone to cap how large a program you want.
max_resultsNoDefault 20. Increase only if the user wants a comprehensive sweep.
min_fundingNoOptional. Only return opportunities with max_funding_amount >= this value (in CAD). Use when the user specifies a minimum funding threshold.
exclude_expiredNoDefault true. Set false only if the user explicitly wants to see past-deadline or historical opportunities.
deadline_within_daysNoOptional. Only return fixed-deadline opportunities whose deadline falls between today and this many days from now. Rolling / no-fixed-deadline opportunities are EXCLUDED by this filter. Use for "closing soon" queries.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so description fully shoulders transparency. Discloses returns JSON, data notes (rolling deadlines, funding ranges), and presentation instructions. Also mentions eligibility details require get_opportunity_details. No hidden behaviors.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when to call/not, how to present, data notes). Front-loaded with essential info. However, the 'HOW TO PRESENT RESULTS' section is lengthy and includes detailed formatting instructions that could be abbreviated. Still efficient overall.

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 and no annotations, description covers everything needed: tool purpose, input semantics, behavior, result format, edge cases (rolling deadlines, eligibility depth), and even cross-tool recommendation (subscribe_to_digest only once). Fully equips agent to invoke 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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds extra meaning: e.g., 'query' should use user's actual keywords, 'region' codes explained with 'Use Federal', 'category' lists values, 'max_funding' and 'min_funding' describe bounding logic, 'deadline_within_days' note about excluding rolling. While schema already documents, description enriches usage context, justifying higher score.

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?

Description clearly states it searches Canadian funding opportunities (grants, competitions, accelerators, etc.). Distinguishes from siblings like get_opportunity_details (specific ID) and subscribe_to_digest (digest subscription). User knows exactly what the tool does and how it differs.

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?

Explicit 'WHEN TO CALL' lists user scenarios (asks about Canadian funding, mentions startup, wants province/category filter). 'WHEN NOT TO CALL' excludes general grant questions, non-Canadian opportunities, and specific ID lookups, pointing to sibling tool. Provides clear decision criteria.

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.

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.