tendfeed

search_tenders

Read-only

Open EU tenders with a bid/no-bid verdict (Worth-It score, reason, competition density, price corridor where robust, deadline, SME-fit). Filter by sector (CPV division), country (NUTS), SME-only, min score. Guests (no key) get the expired-tender board plus a live_matched count; an API key (Authorization: Bearer cfm_live_…) with an active TendFeed subscription unlocks the live, still-biddable board. Data/research tool over TED (Tenders Electronic Daily, CC BY 4.0). No guarantee of award.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cpv`	No	CPV division prefix, e.g. 45 (construction), 72 (IT), 33 (medical)
`nuts`	No	Country prefix, e.g. DE, FR, PL
`limit`	No
`sme_only`	No
`min_score`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: data source (TED, CC BY 4.0), no guarantee of award, and different behavior for guests vs authenticated users. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no redundant sentences. It front-loads the main output and adds access details, data source, and disclaimer in a well-structured way.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what is returned, filters, access levels, and limitations. It lacks mention of default ordering or pagination, but the limit parameter is covered.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description repeats some filter semantics but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states this tool searches for open EU tenders with verdict details (Worth-It score, reason, etc.) and lists specific filters. It distinguishes from siblings like find_low_competition_lanes by focusing on general search rather than specific analyses.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on usage based on authentication: guests see expired tenders and a count, authenticated users see live tenders. It implies this tool is for exploring tenders, but does not explicitly exclude use cases for siblings.

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

All tendfeed 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Two tools (find_low_competition_lanes and find_winnable_lanes) are explicitly identical, with the latter deprecated. This creates confusion for an agent trying to select the correct tool, despite the deprecation note. The other two tools are distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (find_*, get_*, search_*), but find_winnable_lanes is a deprecated alias with a name that implies a win forecast, which contradicts its actual function. This inconsistency reduces clarity.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a server focused on EU tender analysis and competition detection. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count feels appropriate for the domain without being excessive or insufficient.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core workflow: identifying low-competition lanes, searching tenders with verdicts, and retrieving detailed verdicts. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no raw tender search without verdict), but overall the surface is sufficient for its research purpose.

Resources

Need Help?