USASpending.gov

get_idv_children

Read-only

Fetch child awards (task/delivery orders) under an IDV.

For a Multiple Award IDV, child_awards returns the task orders or delivery
orders placed against it. For a parent IDV, child_idvs returns the
downstream IDV structure. grandchild_awards walks the hierarchy.

Field name differences from search_awards: children use 'piid' (not
'Award ID'), 'obligated_amount' (not 'Award Amount'), and
'generated_unique_award_id' (not 'generated_internal_id').

An active vehicle can legitimately return zero children here:
USASpending's award cross-linking has gaps. Treat an empty result as a
reporting gap, not proof that no orders exist. Try get_idv_activity()
on the same id. A search_awards call with keywords=['<IDV PIID>'] only
finds orders whose description happens to cite the IDV, so it misses
orders (often the largest) and is no proof of completeness.

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": {
      "generated_idv_id": "<generated_idv_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_idv_children"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`page`	No
`sort`	No	period_of_performance_start_date
`limit`	No
`order`	No	desc
`child_type`	No	child_awards
`generated_idv_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld, so the description's real contribution is the caveat that an active vehicle can legitimately return zero children due to cross-linking gaps, plus the instruction to treat empty as a reporting gap rather than proof of absence. It also warns about the non-obvious field-name mapping in results. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or how results are ordered by default, which matters for a paged endpoint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation and the mode fork before the caveats; each paragraph has a distinct job (modes, field-name deltas, empty-result warning). Slightly long and the field-name paragraph could be tightened, but nothing is filler.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the operational traps an agent would otherwise fall into. The remaining gap is that the required generated_idv_id argument's expected value/format is never stated, which is the one thing an agent must get right to call the tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does well on the most important parameter, child_type, defining all three enum values and the hierarchy they traverse. However, page, limit, sort, order, and the identity/format of generated_idv_id (notably not the same name as generated_unique_award_id mentioned in the field note) are left entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (fetch child awards / task and delivery orders under an IDV) and immediately disambiguates the three hierarchy modes (child_awards, child_idvs, grandchild_awards). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_idv_activity or search_awards without opening the schema.

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 routes between modes ('For a Multiple Award IDV... For a parent IDV...'), names the fallback (get_idv_activity) when results are empty, and explains why search_awards with keywords is not a substitute. This is genuine when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All USASpending.gov tools Inspect

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.