source_statusLive status of connected procurement sources: implementation status, last successful poll and stored notice count. Honest coverage instead of claims. Pass source to check one portal instead of all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No | Limit to one source key, e.g. 'ted', 'bund', 'doe'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by emphasizing 'live status', 'honest coverage instead of claims', and naming the specific status data points returned, going beyond the structured annotation hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loads the core purpose before explaining the optional filtering behavior. The phrase 'Honest coverage instead of claims' is somewhat vague but does not bloat the description; overall it is tightly written.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema present, the description adequately names the returned information types: implementation status, last successful poll, and stored notice count. Given the low complexity of one optional parameter and strong safety annotations, no critical information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the single optional parameter with examples. The description reinforces and clarifies its behavior by explicitly stating that passing a source checks one portal instead of all, adding functional meaning beyond the schema definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as providing live status information for procurement sources, listing specific output dimensions: implementation status, last successful poll, and stored notice count. It is clearly distinct from the sibling search and retrieval tools, though it does not use an explicit action verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives concrete guidance on using the optional source parameter to check a single portal instead of all portals. However, it does not explicitly state when this tool should be preferred over siblings or describe any exclusion cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
fulltext_search and search_tenders both search tenders, which could lead to confusion despite different scopes (stored index vs live previews). get_tender and summarize_tender also overlap since get_tender can optionally include an AI summary.
get_tender, search_tenders, and summarize_tender follow a clear verb_noun pattern, but countries, fulltext_search, and source_status break the pattern with noun-based names. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
Six tools is well-scoped for a tender search server: search, retrieval, summarization, country statistics, and source health are each represented without redundancy or bloat.
The core lifecycle of finding, fetching, and summarizing tenders is covered, plus useful metadata and status tools. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit pagination or sorting controls, but agents can work around them.