Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

USASpending.gov

by com.1102tools
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_award_subaward_count

Read-only

Count of subawards (FFATA subcontracts/subawards) reported on an award.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "award_id": "<award_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_award_subaward_count"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
award_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the FFATA terminology clarification and the fact that counting is scoped to a single award; nothing about error behavior or how the count is derived.

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?

One compact sentence with the key resource front-loaded and the parenthetical clarification placed where it helps. No filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the single-parameter surface is simple. The remaining gap is the award_id format and how the count relates to the sibling subaward-listing tools, which the description leaves unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required award_id, and the description does not explain the expected identifier format (e.g., generated unique award ID vs. PIID) or how to obtain one. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb (count) and resource (subawards of an award) and clarifies the domain term with '(FFATA subcontracts/subawards)'. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_subawards or spending_by_subaward_grouped, though it never names them explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No indication of when to use this count tool versus search_subawards or get_award_detail, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone.

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

All USASpending.gov 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