Track US federal contract changes: what changed, deltas, competitor award watch, award search.
Given a contractor name, return their recent federal awards (last 180d live) plus any win/lose/modify events the feed has accrued over time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contractor | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully carries the burden due to no annotations. It explicitly states the data recency (last 180 days), types of events returned (win/lose/modify), and that events accrue over time. This is good transparency, though it omits potential limitations like pagination or number of results.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and data scope (180 days, events). It does not describe the return structure, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and when to use it.
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 single parameter 'contractor' is described as 'contractor name' in the description, adding context beyond the bare string type in the schema. However, it does not specify expected format (e.g., exact name, partial match), which could leave 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 takes a contractor name and returns recent federal awards and win/lose/modify events. It specifies the time window (last 180 days) and event types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_awards (general search) and delta_digest (diffs).
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 implicitly suggests use for monitoring a specific contractor's activity, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_awards for broader queries). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Weekly delta digest for a filter: new awards, modifications, and contracts EXPIRING in the next N days (recompete opportunities). Best signal for BD teams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback days for new/modified (default 7). | |
| naics | No | ||
| agency | No | ||
| keyword | No | ||
| maxAmount | No | ||
| minAmount | No | ||
| recipient | No | ||
| expiringDays | No | Expiry horizon, 90 or 180 (default 90). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. It implies a non-modifying digest but omits response format, authentication needs, or rate limits.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise but could benefit from a brief summary of filtering options or output example.
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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how filters interact, or provide example usage. The tool is underdocumented for effective selection and invocation.
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 only 25% (only 'days' and 'expiringDays' have descriptions). The description adds minimal meaning beyond correlating 'expiringDays' with expiring contracts. Key parameters like 'naics', 'agency', 'keyword', 'maxAmount', 'minAmount', and 'recipient' are left entirely unexplained.
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 provides a weekly delta digest of new awards, modifications, and expiring contracts, with filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_awards' by focusing on time-bound changes and recompete opportunities.
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 it is 'best signal for BD teams' and implies use for weekly monitoring. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons with alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for situational guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Direct live search of US federal awards (USAspending.gov) by NAICS, agency, recipient, keyword, date range, and $ range. Use for ad-hoc lookups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| limit | No | Default 50, max 200. | |
| 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?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Direct live search' implying real-time external API access, but fails to mention safety (read-only), rate limits, authentication, or data freshness.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no superfluous information, achieving high information density.
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?
Despite 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description omits return format, pagination details, error handling, and caveats about live external data latency.
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?
Only 11% of parameters have schema descriptions (limit); description lists categories (naics, agency, keyword, date range, $ range) but provides no format, syntax, or examples for the 9 parameters. Falls short of compensating for low schema coverage.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'search', resource 'US federal awards (USAspending.gov)', and lists search dimensions (NAICS, agency, keyword, etc.). It differentiates itself from sibling tools which focus on competitor watching and change detection.
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?
Says 'Use for ad-hoc lookups', giving a general usage context. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, though siblings are unrelated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return federal contract awards that are NEW or MODIFIED since a cursor token. Pass the cursor from a prior call to get only changes since then (cursor = your bookmark). Filter by NAICS, awarding agency, recipient/contractor, keyword, and $ range. This is the GovCon delta feed's core lock-in primitive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max changes to return (default 100). | |
| naics | No | NAICS code prefixes, e.g. ['5415']. | |
| agency | No | Awarding agency name substring, e.g. 'Defense'. | |
| cursor | No | Opaque cursor from a previous response; omit for first call. | |
| keyword | No | ||
| maxAmount | No | ||
| minAmount | No | ||
| recipient | No | Contractor name substring. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the incremental behavior and cursor usage but omits details like rate limits, pagination beyond limit, cursor expiration, or whether the operation is read-only. Transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.
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, well-structured paragraph of three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains cursor usage, then lists filters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
The description lacks details about the return format (e.g., whether response includes a new cursor for iteration) and does not cover pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter. Given the tool's role as a delta feed, this missing context reduces completeness.
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 63%, and the description adds value by grouping filters (NAICS, agency, etc.) and clarifying the cursor's role ('bookmark'). It explains the cursor usage pattern beyond the schema, though it does not mention the limit parameter explicitly.
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 returns 'federal contract awards that are NEW or MODIFIED since a cursor token,' identifying the specific verb ('return'), resource ('federal contract awards'), and unique incremental nature. This explicitly differentiates it from siblings like search_awards (full search) or competitor_watch (different focus).
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 explains the core usage ('Pass the cursor from a prior call to get only changes since then') and lists filter options, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or mention when not to use it, missing full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
competitor_watchdelta_digestsearch_awardswhats_changed_sinceClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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!
Government contract search and federal procurement data: SAM.gov opportunities + USASpending awards.
Research U.S. federal contracts, awards, vendors, changes, exclusions, and source documents.
US federal contracting data: open solicitations, buying agencies, contractors, price history.
Federal contract intelligence: $7T+ awards, SAM.gov opps, pWin verdicts, recompetes, protests.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: competitor_watch focuses on a specific contractor's history, delta_digest provides weekly summaries, search_awards enables ad-hoc live searches, and whats_changed_since handles incremental updates. No overlap or ambiguity.
Names follow a mostly consistent pattern of descriptive phrases with underscores (e.g., competitor_watch, search_awards). 'whats_changed_since' is slightly less conventional but still readable. Overall, the naming is clear and predictable.
With 4 tools covering search, competitor tracking, weekly digest, and incremental updates, the count is well-scoped for a federal contract feed. Each tool serves a distinct need without unnecessary redundancy.
The set covers key workflows: ad-hoc search, targeted contractor watching, periodic summaries, and change tracking. Minor gaps like direct access to award details or agency/NAICS browsing are mitigated by the search tool's capabilities.
