USASpending.gov

get_recipient_profile

Read-only

Get full profile for a recipient by their USASpending hash.

Returns recipient details: name, UEI, DUNS, business categories, location,
parent (if any), and lifetime award totals. The hash is the 'id' field
returned by search_recipients(). (autocomplete_recipient does NOT return
hashes; it is a name lookup only.)

year: optional 'all' or a fiscal year like 2026 (int or str both
accepted). Default is 'latest' (trailing 12 months). Parent (-P) totals
include their children. Profiles use a separate recipient rollup and can
differ from transaction searches by recipient_name and award-type scope.

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": {
      "recipient_hash": "<recipient_hash>"
    },
    "name": "get_recipient_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`year`	No
`recipient_hash`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld, and the description adds non-obvious semantics: parent (-P) totals include children, and profiles use a separate recipient rollup that can diverge from transaction searches by recipient_name and award-type scope. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry; only minor room left (no mention of edge cases like missing hash).

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 purpose and returns, then parameter notes, then a caveat — a sensible ordering with little waste. Slight redundancy: the return-field list partially duplicates what the output schema already exposes, and the parenthetical about autocomplete is long.

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?

For a read-only, two-parameter lookup, the description covers purpose, hash provenance, year semantics, rollup caveats, and return contents. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: `year` accepts 'all' or a fiscal year (int or str), defaults to 'latest' interpreted as trailing 12 months, and `recipient_hash` is identified as the id from search_recipients. Both parameters are fully disambiguated beyond the bare schema types.

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 ('Get full profile for a recipient') and enumerates the returned fields (name, UEI, DUNS, business categories, location, parent, lifetime totals), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. This is clearly distinguishable from search_recipients and get_recipient_children.

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 tells the agent where the required hash comes from ('the id field returned by search_recipients()') and pre-empts a likely mistake by noting autocomplete_recipient does NOT return hashes and is name-lookup only. That is concrete when-to-use/when-not routing against real siblings.

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.