Skip to main content
Glama

Victano: EU tenders and grant calls

by com.victano
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get one playbook in full

get_workflow
Read-onlyIdempotent

The complete step-by-step playbook for one workflow id, including the decision gates, the EU procurement specifics that decide eligibility, and the pitfalls that lose bids. Follow it rather than summarising it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
nameNo
sessionNoThe `session` value the sign-in returned. Pass it on every call in this conversation, so the sign-in survives however this client handles connections; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key.
workflow_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / session / description
      Previous value: -"The `session` value connect_verify returned, when this client keeps no connection session. Pass it on every Victano call in this conversation; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key."New value: +"The `session` value the sign-in returned. Pass it on every call in this conversation, so the sign-in survives however this client handles connections; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / session
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The `session` value connect_verify returned, when this client keeps no connection session. Pass it on every Victano call in this conversation; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it returns the full playbook and should be followed, not summarised. This provides some behavioral context, but nothing extra about performance or exact output structure. No contradiction.

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 description is a single sentence that is reasonably concise and front-loads the main purpose. The instruction to follow rather than summarise is extra, but useful. It could be improved but is not verbose.

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 ambiguity between id and workflow_id parameters (both string, optional, with no description), the description does not resolve this, which is a significant gap. No output schema exists, so the description should explain what 'full playbook' includes; it does mention decision gates and procurement specifics, but not the return format. Overall, incomplete for correct usage.

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 only 25% (only session has a description). The description does not detail which parameter to use (id, workflow_id, name), which is critical. It provides no help beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate, but could be lower given the ambiguity.

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 states a clear verb ('get') and resource ('workflow'), and explains it returns the full step-by-step playbook. It could be more specific about the parameters (id vs workflow_id) but is generally clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 description implies usage for retrieving a specific workflow and advises to follow it rather than summarise. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs list_workflows, but the nature of list vs get is clear from tool names. No explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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 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