federal-grant-shortlist-preflightRun deterministic rule-based checks over up to five retrieved Grants.gov notices: deadline horizon, listed applicant-type code intersection, source-field completeness, and official-notice verification flags. Paid HTTP endpoint: https://genuinegood.online/v1/grants/preflight. Price: $5.00 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 cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those: it is a paid external HTTP endpoint with a specific price and payment mechanism, and it is deterministic. This is meaningful behavioral information an agent needs before invoking.
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?
Three concise sentences with no filler: the first defines the operation and scope, the second gives the endpoint, and the third gives pricing. Every sentence earns its place and critical details are front-loaded.
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 plus annotations are reasonably complete for an agent: it knows the operation, the check categories, the input cap, the endpoint, and the cost. The linked OpenAPI contract addresses request details, and the description gives enough about the nature of the output, though it could more explicitly state the response format.
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 has no defined parameters and points to an external OpenAPI contract, so there is little structured parameter information. The description adds the important constraint 'up to five retrieved Grants.gov notices' and defines what the preflight evaluates, which gives the agent meaningful input semantics beyond the empty schema.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run deterministic rule-based checks over up to five retrieved Grants.gov notices.' It enumerates the exact check categories, which sharply distinguishes this preflight tool from siblings like federal-grant-detail or 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?
It clearly implies the tool is for a shortlist of retrieved notices and imposes a hard cap of five, so an agent knows when it applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is clear enough for routing.
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.