Skip to main content
Glama

pulsenetwork

by com.theaslangroupllc.pulse

govspendpulse

GovSpendPulse: Global government procurement intelligence API. 9 endpoints covering US federal contracts (USASpending.gov), active solicitations (SAM.gov), EU tenders (TED), UK contracts, global development bank opp

Coverage: Global

Endpoints: • us-contracts ($0.08): US federal contract awards • us-opportunities ($0.08): US active solicitations (SAM.gov) • eu-tenders ($0.08): EU procurement tenders (TED) • uk-contracts ($0.08): UK government contracts • global-opportunities ($0.15): Global procurement opportunities • agency-intel ($0.15): US agency spending intelligence • competitor-awards ($0.15): Competitor federal award analysis • development-bank ($0.15): Development bank procurement • contract-brief ($0.20): Full contract intelligence brief

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cpvNoCPV procurement code — e.g. 72000000 (IT services)
langNoResponse language
limitNoNumber of results (5, 10, or 20)
naicsNoNAICS code — e.g. 541512 (computer systems design)
stateNoTwo-letter US state code — e.g. VA, CA, TX
actionYesWhich endpoint to call. Options: us-contracts | us-opportunities | eu-tenders | uk-contracts | global-opportunities | agency-intel | competitor-awards | development-bank | contract-brief
activeNoOnly return open solicitations
agencyNoAgency name or abbreviation — e.g. DHS, VA, HHS, DoD, NASA, GSA
countryNoISO 2-letter country code — e.g. DE, FR, PL, NL (blank = all EU)
keywordNoSearch term — e.g. cybersecurity, cloud computing, management consulting
regionsNoComma-separated regions: australia, canada, asia, africa, latam, mena, un
year_fromNoFiscal year start — e.g. 2024, 2025

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does mention per-endpoint pricing and data sources, which adds context, but omits important details such as required authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with 12 parameters and multiple endpoints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with a bullet list, which aids readability, but it is verbose and ends abruptly with 'development bank opp' (clearly truncated). The opening sentence is somewhat marketing-like and could be tightened, while the list does provide useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (9 endpoints, 12 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lists endpoints and prices but does not explain which parameters apply to which endpoints, what the response looks like, or any usage examples. This leaves the agent under-informed for selecting and invoking the correct action.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 12 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about how parameters relate to specific endpoints or provide examples beyond the schema's own descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a global government procurement intelligence API and lists its 9 endpoints with data sources, distinguishing it from the many 'pulse' siblings by domain. However, it lacks a single specific verb like 'query' or 'fetch', relying on the resource list to convey function.

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?

The endpoint list implies when to use each action (e.g., 'us-contracts' for US federal awards), but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The coverage note ('Global') gives some context, but no direct comparison to other tools is provided.

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

All pulsenetwork toolsInspect
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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a unique domain prefix (e.g., airdroppulse, alphapulse, arbipulse) making them mostly distinguishable at a glance. A few adjacent verticals like careerpulse vs talentpulse or marketpulse vs dealpulse have overlapping themes, but their descriptions clarify the distinct focus. The utility tools (catalog_search, discover, get_openapi_spec, x402_troubleshoot) are also clearly distinct in role. However, the sheer number of similar 'pulse' names could still cause misselection without reading descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant naming convention is `<domain>pulse` (e.g., climatepulse, cryptopulse, edupulse), which is highly consistent and predictable. Exceptions like catalog_search, discover, get_openapi_spec, x402_troubleshoot, and stateedge break the pattern, but these are few and serve obvious utility purposes. Overall, the convention is clear and easily learnable.

Tool Count2/5

With 80 tools, the server presents an extremely large and potentially overwhelming surface. While each tool represents a distinct intelligence vertical and navigation aids exist (catalog_search, discover, get_openapi_spec), the count far exceeds the typical 3-15 range for coherent agent use and even the 'heavy' 16-25 range. The burden of selecting the correct vertical from 80 options is significant, despite clear naming.

Completeness5/5

The server offers an exceptionally broad and deep coverage of domains, from finance and health to agriculture and gaming. Each vertical includes multiple endpoints that address core operations for its domain, such as search, analysis, comparisons, deterministic checks, and even action-oriented tools like letter generators and physical mail. The presence of free discovery and troubleshooting tools fills potential gaps, leaving no obvious dead ends in the overall tool surface.

Resources