Federal contractor M&A signals: rising contractors, growth momentum, award search.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one retrieves a detailed signal profile for a specific contractor, one provides a ranked feed of rising contractors, and one searches federal awards. No overlap or ambiguity.
Tool names follow a general pattern of lowercase snake_case, but the stylistic role varies: 'contractor_signals' is a noun phrase, 'rising_contractors' is adjective-noun, and 'search_awards' is verb-noun. This inconsistency, while minor, breaks a strict verb_noun pattern.
Three tools is appropriate for the focused domain of government contractor signals and award data. The count is minimal but covers the key operations: individual signal, aggregated feed, and search. Could arguably benefit from one or two additional tools (e.g., detailed award view), but not excessive.
The tools cover the primary use cases: retrieving an individual signal profile, accessing a ranked feed, and searching awards. However, there is no tool to retrieve detailed information on a specific award or to filter signals by criteria beyond what is embedded in the tools. This is a minor gap but does not severely hinder functionality.
contractor_signalsAInspectGiven a federal contractor NAME, return its acquisition-likelihood / rising-contractor signal profile: a 0-100 pattern-based score with full reasoning, plus award-velocity, multi-year trajectory, agency/NAICS mix, biggest win, set-aside footprint, and (if public) SEC EDGAR ticker + recent corporate-event filings. Built on PUBLIC USAspending.gov + EDGAR data. Probabilistic leading-signal estimate — NOT certainty, NOT insider/MNPI, NOT investment advice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Contractor name, e.g. 'Palantir' or 'ECS Federal'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a probabilistic leading-signal estimate, not certainty, not insider information, based on public USAspending.gov and EDGAR data. This helps the agent understand the tool's limitations and data sources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured, starting with the primary output, then data sources, then caveats. It is slightly long but every sentence adds necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description comprehensively lists what is returned (score, reasoning, award-velocity, trajectory, agency mix, etc.). It covers key aspects but could specify output format for better parsing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'name' has a clear schema description with an example. The tool description elaborates on how the name is used, adding context beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is simple, the description adds value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool takes a contractor name and returns a detailed signal profile, including acquisition-likelihood score, reasoning, award-velocity, trajectory, and more. It is distinct from sibling tools 'rising_contractors' and 'search_awards', which focus on listing rising contractors and searching awards respectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use: given a federal contractor NAME. It provides context that the data is public and the signal is probabilistic, not investment advice. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rising_contractorsAInspectReturn the current ranked 'Rising Contractors / Likely M&A Targets' feed — small/mid federal contractors showing the strongest leading acquisition signals, refreshed daily.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows (default 20). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the feed is 'refreshed daily' and 'current ranked', but with no annotations, it fails to disclose other behaviors such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no superfluous words. Every phrase adds value: 'current ranked', 'small/mid federal contractors', 'strongest leading acquisition signals', 'refreshed daily'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns (feed), focus (small/mid federal contractors), update frequency (daily), and ranking basis (acquisition signals). Minor omission: explanation of ranking criteria.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already describes the 'limit' parameter with 'Max rows (default 20).' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and since schema coverage is 100%, baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as the 'Rising Contractors / Likely M&A Targets' feed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'contractor_signals' (different signal type) and 'search_awards' (different concept).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'contractor_signals' or 'search_awards'. The description implies it is for getting rising contractors, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_awardsCInspectDirect live search of US federal awards (USAspending.gov) by NAICS, agency, recipient, keyword, date and $ range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| naics | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| agency | No | ||
| keyword | No | ||
| maxAmount | No | ||
| minAmount | No | ||
| recipient | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'direct live search,' indicating real-time data, but omits details about read-only nature, rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or pagination behavior. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It could be slightly more structured with a bullet list of filters, but it is efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output format, pagination, sorting, or result limits. The search tool's return structure is entirely unspecified, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It lists parameter categories (NAICS, agency, recipient, keyword, date range, dollar range) which cover the 9 parameters at a high level. However, it does not explain formats, constraints, or how parameters interact, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a live search of US federal awards using various criteria like NAICS, agency, recipient, keyword, date, and dollar range. It identifies the datasource (USAspending.gov) and the scope, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like contractor_signals or rising_contractors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for searching awards, but lacks contextual cues about prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when to choose another tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
