federal-grant-searchSearch current Grants.gov opportunities with normalized deadlines, days remaining, agency, status, assistance listing numbers, and official source links. Paid HTTP endpoint: https://genuinegood.online/v1/grants/search. Price: $0.05 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful operational context beyond those flags: it identifies a paid HTTP endpoint, the exact price in USDC, the x402/Base payment mechanism, and the normalized result fields. It stops short of discussing caching, rate limits, or error behavior, but the most consequential behavioral facts are disclosed.
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 with no filler. The first sentence states the function and expected result characteristics; the second adds the endpoint and pricing. Critical information is front-loaded before commercial details, and every clause earns its place.
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, the description compensates well by listing the returned fields, and it covers cost and endpoint. However, it never explains pagination, query/body request structure, or behavior when no results are found, and the actual request schema is delegated to a linked OpenAPI contract that is not included in the description. For a paid external search API, this leaves an agent with notable unknowns for correct invocation.
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?
There are zero formal parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not define query inputs itself and the input schema defers to an external OpenAPI contract, but with no parameters in the schema there is little for the description to clarify. It adds useful result-field semantics, though request-parameter specifics remain external.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Search current Grants.gov opportunities,' and enumerates concrete output features such as normalized deadlines, days remaining, agency, status, assistance listing numbers, and official source links. This clearly identifies it as the broad search/discovery tool and distinguishes it from sibling tools like federal-grant-detail or grant-opportunity-brief.
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 search use case is implied by the verb and resource, but the description never explicitly says when to use this over federal-grant-detail, grant-opportunity-brief, or grant-eligibility-fit. There are no exclusions or conditions stating 'use this for discovery; use detail when you have a specific grant ID.' Thus usage guidance is present only by implication.
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.