AtlasAdapt

One incentive by its reference

get_incentive

Read-onlyIdempotent

Full record for one programme, by the reference a person reads off a screen (US12c, FR33, DE12) or its id: grantor, amount rule, funding state, conditions, sources. Eligibility formulas, research sources and budget detail appear only if this key was granted them. Never add an incentive whose counts_toward_roi is false (paused, waitlisted, closed) or that is contingent or competitive into any total; show every stated condition beside its incentive; name incentives by their ref (e.g. US12c). Amounts are guidance to be confirmed with the grantor.

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": {
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "get_incentive"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	Yes	e.g. US12c

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral detail annotations can't express: eligibility formulas, research sources and budget detail are returned only if the key was granted them, which tells the agent to expect partial payloads rather than assume missing data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is front-loaded with the what-and-how in the first sentence, but the trailing rules about ROI totals, conditions, naming and amount disclaimers bundle several distinct policies into one run-on block and go beyond what is needed to invoke this read tool. Nothing is strictly wrong, but the density hurts scannability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the description correctly focuses on the conditionally-gated fields the schema can't signal. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only an explicit alternative-tool routing statement is missing.

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% and the schema already shows 'e.g. US12c' for ref. The description's only real addition is that a raw id is also accepted alongside the human-readable ref, which is a modest but genuine increment over the schema; the example formats restate what the schema already conveys.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Full record for one programme') and its key ('the reference a person reads off a screen ... or its id'), immediately distinguishing it from the sibling search tool find_incentives. The enumerated payload fields (grantor, amount rule, funding state, conditions, sources) make the scope concrete.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly frames this as the single-record lookup keyed by ref or id, which implies the split with find_incentives, and it adds concrete downstream usage rules (never total paused/waitlisted/closed or contingent/competitive incentives, show conditions beside each incentive, confirm amounts with the grantor). What it lacks is an explicit 'use find_incentives instead when...' exclusion, so the routing stays implicit.

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

All AtlasAdapt 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.

Resources

Need Help?