foundation-discovery

Get Funder Profile

get_funder_profile

Read-only

Get detailed profile information for a specific funder.

Polymorphic identifier — pass ein for US 990 foundations OR funder_id (bare UUID / n9f:<uuid>) for non-990 funders such as European, UK 360Giving, and Canadian CRA T3010 funders. search_funders returns both fields on every hit, so the caller can hand either one back here. At least one identifier must be supplied.

Use this after searching for funders to get detailed information about a specific one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ein`	No	Foundation EIN (9 digits) for US 990 funders. Can include hyphens (e.g., "94-3136777") or be provided as digits only (e.g., "943136777"). Optional if ``funder_id`` is supplied for a non-990 funder.
`funder_id`	No	Optional non-990 funder id. Accepts a bare UUID or ``n9f:<uuid>`` / ``non990:<uuid>``. The ``usf:<ein>`` prefix is also accepted and routes back to the EIN path.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnly/destructive hints, so the description need not repeat them. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining polymorphic identifier handling (ein vs funder_id with n9f prefix) and the constraint that at least one identifier must be supplied. No contradiction 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 three short, front-loaded paragraphs with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, identifier polymorphism, and when to use it.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With only two optional parameters, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the core workflow and identifier choice completely. It answers the key questions an agent would have about what to pass and when.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantics by grouping the identifiers by funder type (US 990 vs non-990) and reinforcing that search_funders returns both fields, aiding identifier selection.

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 opens with 'Get detailed profile information for a specific funder,' which uses a specific verb and resource and immediately distinguishes this from sibling search/stats tools. It also clarifies the scope (specific funder) rather than a list or aggregate.

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 explicitly states 'Use this after searching for funders to get detailed information about a specific one,' giving clear situational context. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All foundation-discovery 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct purpose: find_funders_for_peers uses peer-based collaborative filtering, search_funders does name/topic lookup, search_open_grants finds active RFPs, search_nonprofits searches recipients, get_funder_* tools provide different aspects of funder data, and utilities like health_check and list_tools are separate. No overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming conventions are mixed: 'find_', 'get_', 'search_', 'health_check', 'list_tools', 'get_ntee_codes'. While verbs are descriptive, there is no single consistent pattern (e.g., all search_ or all get_). This could cause slight confusion.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is well-scoped for a foundation discovery server. Each tool addresses a clear need (prospecting, detail, financials, jobs, utilities) without being excessive or insufficient.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of foundation research: finding funders (by peers, name, open grants), getting detailed profiles, grants, stats, financials, NTEE codes, and even funder jobs. The inclusion of recipient-side search (search_nonprofits) complements the funder side, leaving no obvious gaps.

Resources

Need Help?