DataNexus MCP

govcon_fetch_open_solicitations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch currently open government contract solicitations matching a keyword. Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent. keyword: Description of goods or services sought e.g. cloud computing services. Required. Encode special characters — + becomes %2B. agency: Awarding agency name. Optional, defaults to all agencies. jurisdiction: One of US, EU, or UK. Optional. Default US. Returns solicitation title, agency, response deadline, estimated value, and NAICS code. Use this when looking for active bid opportunities. Use govcon_search_contract_awards instead when you need historical awards not open solicitations. Verified source: SAM.gov + USASpending.gov. 4-hour cache. If this tool's response does not serve the user's need, call report_feedback with feedback_type="agent_gap", tool_id="govcon_fetch_open_solicitations", intended_query="{what the user needed}", gap_description="{what was missing or wrong in the result}".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agency`	No	Awarding agency name. Optional, defaults to all agencies.
`keyword`	Yes	Description of goods or services sought e.g. cloud computing. Required.
`jurisdiction`	No	Jurisdiction: US, EU, or UK. Default US. Optional.	US

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds 'No side effects', 'Idempotent', cache behavior (4-hour), and data source, providing rich context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single paragraph but covers all necessary aspects efficiently. Some repetition (e.g., 'Mandatory' in description of keyword) but overall well-structured and compact.

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 3 parameters, rich annotations, and output schema present, the description is fully complete: it explains purpose, usage, parameters, return fields, source, cache, and error feedback. No gaps.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions. Description adds encoding guidance for keyword, default values for optional params, and explains expected date range behavior (implied from 'currently open').

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 description clearly states it fetches open solicitations with a keyword, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool for historical awards, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('active bid opportunities') and when-not-to-use (use govcon_search_contract_awards for historical awards). Also includes fallback feedback mechanism.

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

All DataNexus MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (compliance, domain, frontend_security, etc.) with distinct purposes. Minor overlap exists between frontend_security_detect_typosquatting and security_detect_typosquatting, but descriptions clarify the different scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. Irregularities like 'fetch' vs 'audit' and two 'detect_typosquatting' tools exist, but overall naming is predictable within domains.

Tool Count3/5

55 tools is high for a single server given the breadth of domains. Some redundancy (e.g., two typosquatting tools) suggests possible trimming, but the count is justified by the wide coverage.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key operations across domains like compliance, domain, security, legal, and nonprofit. Minor gaps exist, such as limited frontend audit beyond package.json and no general-purpose code scanning.

Resources

Need Help?