Victano: EU tenders and grant calls

Finish connecting an account

connect_verify

Complete authentication with the request_id from connect_start and the six-digit code the user received. On success this session is authenticated immediately, with no reconnect, and the full toolset appears. Save the returned api_key into this client's MCP config as an Authorization: Bearer header so future conversations start connected. The key is shown once and cannot be recovered.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden: it discloses immediate session authentication, no reconnect, full toolset availability, one-time key display, and the need to persist the key. This is rich, useful transparency beyond what the schema could convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. Each subsequent sentence adds necessary operational detail — success behavior, persistence requirement, and one-time key warning — without any filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential call context, success semantics, and what to do with the returned api_key. Nothing important is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only parameter titles, but the description supplies the meaning and format: request_id comes from connect_start and code is a six-digit value the user received. It also references the returned api_key, fully compensating for 0% schema description coverage.

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 states a specific action — 'Complete authentication' — with the two required inputs and explicitly references the predecessor connect_start. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the read/workflow siblings and from connect_start, which starts rather than verifies the connection.

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?

It names connect_start as the source of request_id and specifies the six-digit user-received code, establishing exactly when this tool is used in the connection flow. It doesn't spell out explicit exclusions such as 'do not call before connect_start', but the context is clear.

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

All Victano: EU tenders and grant calls tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly bounded job: auth start/verify, search vs. full record, workflow list vs. workflow detail, and account status. An agent is unlikely to confuse any two tools because resource and action boundaries are distinct.

Naming Consistency4/5

Six tools follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern: connect_start, connect_verify, get_opportunity, get_workflow, list_workflows, search_opportunities. The exception is 'whoami', a single recognizable token that breaks the verb_noun pattern but is still consistent in style.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for an auth-gated EU tender and grant search service. There is no redundancy, and each tool serves a necessary part of the workflow from authentication through search, retrieval, playbooks, and account limits.

Completeness2/5

The documented workflow is search_opportunities → get_opportunity → read_document, but read_document is absent from the exposed toolset despite being described as the required follow-up for eligibility text. This creates a dead end that will cause agent failures in the core use case. The rest of the surface—search, detail retrieval, workflow guidance, and account introspection—is otherwise reasonably complete.

Resources

Need Help?