federal-grant-detailRetrieve an official Grants.gov opportunity with normalized applicant types, eligibility text, award range, deadline, categories, and provenance. Paid HTTP endpoint: https://genuinegood.online/v1/grants/detail. Price: $0.08 USDC via x402 on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds that this is a paid external HTTP endpoint with a specific price and payment rail (x402 on Base), which is useful behavioral context. It also notes data is 'normalized' and includes provenance, adding value beyond the annotations. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and deliverable, then endpoint and cost. No filler; every clause adds information.
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?
The description covers output fields, endpoint, and price, but omits the input selection mechanism and any usage/routing context versus siblings. There is no output schema, so the return-value list helps, but the missing invocation detail is a material gap.
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 input schema is a placeholder that only says to use a linked OpenAPI contract, and the description never explains how to identify which grant opportunity to retrieve, such as a grant ID. With zero declared parameters and additionalProperties allowed, an agent cannot determine the correct request body or query from this definition alone.
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?
States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('official Grants.gov opportunity') and enumerates the returned data fields, so an agent understands the core deliverable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling 'grant-opportunity-brief' or state that this is the full-detail counterpart to federal-grant-search.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this over federal-grant-search or grant-opportunity-brief; it does not say, for example, to call this after a search to get full details. The only contextual cue is price and endpoint, which are cost details rather than usage conditions.
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.
Most tools map cleanly to distinct stages: search, detail, preflight, and access pass are clearly separated. The only real tension is between grant-eligibility-fit and grant-opportunity-brief, since both match current opportunities and surface eligibility/deadline signals; the descriptions distinguish ranking/reasons from narrative briefs, but an agent could still pick the wrong one.
Names are consistently lowercase hyphenated noun phrases, but the prefix pattern splits between federal-grant-* and grant-*, and grant-api-30-day-pass mixes in API and a duration. This is readable but not a single predictable verb_noun convention, so it feels slightly inconsistent.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for a grants discovery/analysis service: raw search and detail, screening, ranking, briefing, and an access-pass tool. Each tool fills a distinct role in the workflow without the surface feeling bloated or thin.
The server covers the core pipeline from discovering opportunities, retrieving official records, evaluating fit, and producing briefs. It lacks conveniences like saved shortlists or batch comparison, but agents can assemble those from search/detail outputs, so the gaps are minor.