Skip to main content
Glama

workspace-alberta

by io.github.HarleyCoops
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Search procurement opportunities

search_opportunities
Read-only

Search CanadaBuys and Alberta Purchasing Connection together.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum combined results (default 20, max 50)
sourceNoall, federal, or albertaall
categoryNoOptional category such as services, goods, construction, steel, lumber
keywordsNoSearch words or phrase
provinceNoOptional province or delivery region filter

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo
countNo
warningsNo
opportunitiesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "opportunities": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "buyer": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "category": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "closing": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "reference": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "region": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "solicitation": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "source": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "warnings": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds the behavioral fact that the search spans two sources simultaneously, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose details like result merging, pagination, or any side effects, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, a mid score is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the essential purpose without any filler. It is optimally concise and well-structured for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of a rich output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to convey the high-level intent, which it does. However, it omits any note about how results from the two sources are combined (e.g., deduplication, ordering) or any default behavior. For a tool with moderate complexity, this is adequate but not exhaustive, so a 3 reflects the minimal completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all five parameters, each with descriptive text. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Per calibration, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and there is no additional value from the description, so 3 is correct.

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 a specific action ('search') applied to two named resources ('CanadaBuys and Alberta Purchasing Connection') together. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_alberta_opportunities or find_opportunities, which likely target one source or a different scope. It is not a tautology and directly conveys the tool's core purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a combined search but does not state conditions like 'use when you want results from both federal and provincial sources' or contrast with tools like search_alberta_opportunities or find_opportunities. The agent is left to infer usage from the wording alone.

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

All workspace-alberta toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources