Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

signaltender-mcp

by com.onrender.b2b-contract-parser-api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

FAR 52.203-13 Business Ethics, Procurement Integrity Act & OIG Mandatory Disclosure

audit_organizational_ethics_far_52_203_13
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit compliance incidents, overpayments, and hiring of former government officials against FAR 52.203-13 (Mandatory Disclosure Rule), False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729), and Procurement Integrity Act (FAR 3.104), generating an Internal Control System & Post-Government Employment opinion. Returns a strictly validated EthicsMandatoryDisclosureResponse JSON object containing credible_evidence_and_ethics_overview, far_52_203_13_and_pia_trigger_audit_matrix, oig_disclosure_submission_and_pge_wall_memos, and far_9_4_present_responsibility_and_internal_controls grounded in FAR 52.203-13 (Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (False Claims Act), FAR 3.104 (41 U.S.C. § 2101–2107 PIA), & 18 U.S.C. § 207. This is a read-only, stateless, non-destructive GovCon compliance and capture analysis call (requires X-RapidAPI-Key or X-SignalTender-Key; compliance_incident_or_former_official_hiring_text accepts 15 to 45,000 characters, while audit_focus_regime and contract_value_and_performance_duration calibrate the regulatory regime and threshold assumptions). Use this tool when executing FAR 52.203-13 Business Ethics, Procurement Integrity Act & OIG Mandatory Disclosure workflows; use scan_far_dfars_clauses instead for general FAR/DFARS clause flow-down audits, or generate_compliance_matrix for general Section L/M 'shall' requirement extraction.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
audit_focus_regimeNoTarget regulatory regime, statutory authority, or evaluation framework (defaults to 'FAR_52_203_13_Credible_Evidence_OIG_Disclosure_FAR_3_104_PIA_And_18_USC_207_Revolving_Door').FAR_52_203_13_Credible_Evidence_OIG_Disclosure_FAR_3_104_PIA_And_18_USC_207_Revolving_Door
contract_value_and_performance_durationNoOperational context, threshold parameters, or compliance posture assumptions (defaults to 'Active Contract > $6.0M Threshold and > 120 Days Performance (Full FAR 52.203-13(c) Internal Control System Required)').Active Contract > $6.0M Threshold and > 120 Days Performance (Full FAR 52.203-13(c) Internal Control System Required)
compliance_incident_or_former_official_hiring_textYesPrimary solicitation text, clause excerpts, deliverable schedule, or technical/financial context for FAR 52.203-13 Business Ethics, Procurement Integrity Act & OIG Mandatory Disclosure (15 to 45,000 characters).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoExecution status ('success').
credible_evidence_and_ethics_overviewNoExecutive determination overview, regulatory citations, and readiness score.
far_52_203_13_and_pia_trigger_audit_matrixNoStructured line-by-line regulatory audit, classification, or quantitative schedule rows.
oig_disclosure_submission_and_pge_wall_memosNoPaste-ready compliance narratives, control specifications, or submission sections.
far_9_4_present_responsibility_and_internal_controlsNoStatutory governance protocol and actionable submission verification checklist.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the API-key requirement, the 15–45,000 character input band, and which parameters act as regime/threshold calibrators rather than source text. The 'read-only, stateless, non-destructive' restatement duplicates the annotation block and earns no additional credit, but nothing is contradicted.

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?

Purpose and routing are front-loaded, which is good, but the middle is padded: full statutory citations appear twice, all four output field names are enumerated despite an output schema, and the safety hints repeat the annotations. Roughly a third of the text could be cut without information loss.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations plus 100% schema coverage carry the safety and parameter load. The remaining need — what a response actually decides (opinion vs. raw finding) — is handled by the field names and the phrase 'Internal Control System & Post-Government Employment opinion'.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the length bounds already in the schema and gestures at the two calibration parameters; it does not explain what values of audit_focus_regime are meaningful or how the threshold string is parsed, so it adds little beyond structured data.

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 set (audit incidents, overpayments, post-government hiring) against named authorities (FAR 52.203-13, FCA, PIA) and names the output artifact. It also explicitly separates itself from scan_far_dfars_clauses and generate_compliance_matrix, so the agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Names two concrete alternatives and the condition that selects each ('general FAR/DFARS clause flow-down' vs 'Section L/M shall requirement extraction'). The positive when-to-use clause is circular ('when executing ... workflows'), but the exclusion guidance is genuinely actionable.

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

All signaltender-mcp toolsInspect
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