Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tensorust Ontology

by com.tensorust
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

One institution's banned-vendor exposure

exposure_institution
Read-only

For a university, hospital or other federal award recipient (name or UEI): how many of its federal awards have 2025-26 papers naming a listed vendor (BGI/MGI, Novogene, WuXi AppTec, DJI, Hikvision, Huawei and others) in methods, the FY2025 dollars, the split by list and by rule status (e.g. BIOSECURE no-grace vs grace-eligible, Section 889 in force), and its largest awards. Free: totals and the 5 largest awards. full=true: every award with the evidence sentence and paper link with a Tensorust key.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "exposure_institution"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fullNotrue returns every linked object and property. Needs a Tensorust key (Authorization: Bearer tdk_...). Omit for the free preview.
nameYesRecipient name or UEI, e.g. 'Stanford University', 'University of Pittsburgh'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / full / description
      Previous value: -"true returns every linked object and property. Costs $0.05 per call in USDC on Base over x402 (the tool answers with x402 payment terms that an x402 MCP client pays), or free with a Tensorust key. Omit for the free preview."New value: +"true returns every linked object and property. Needs a Tensorust key (Authorization: Bearer tdk_...). Omit for the free preview."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the free tier returns only totals and the 5 largest awards, while full=true returns every award with evidence sentences and paper links and requires a Tensorust key. That tiering and auth requirement are not in the 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 core purpose and the free/full distinction are front-loaded, and every clause carries information. It is a single dense sentence that runs long, but no clause is filler; a light restructure into two sentences would improve scanability without changing content.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so concretely (totals, dollar figures, split by list and rule status, largest awards, evidence sentences). The only gap is that it doesn't state the response shape or whether results are paginated in full mode.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'name' accepts a recipient name or UEI and that 'full' unlocks per-award evidence and paper links rather than just a different shape. This helps an agent decide whether the paid path is worth it.

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 names a specific resource (one institution's banned-vendor exposure) and enumerates exactly what is computed: award counts with 2025-26 papers naming listed vendors, FY2025 dollars, split by list and rule status, and largest awards. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like exposure_awards or exposure_summary, which operate at different scopes.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It states the intended audience (university, hospital, other federal award recipient) and the free-vs-full tiering, which is useful context. However, it never names an alternative tool or says when to prefer exposure_awards, exposure_summary, or exposure_screen_purchases over this one, so routing is left to inference.

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

All Tensorust Ontology 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