Tender MCP
Server Details
Government tender search for AI agents. UK, EU and US procurement opportunities.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search_tenders for discovering active tenders, and get_tender_intelligence for competitive analysis on a specific tender. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'search_tenders' and 'get_tender_intelligence'. The naming is uniform and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but covers the core phases of tender discovery and intelligence. However, a more complete set might include tools for managing bids or alerts, so it feels slightly under-scoped.
Significant gaps exist: there are no tools for creating, updating, or deleting tender-related entities (e.g., bids, saved searches, or alerts). The server only handles search and intelligence, leaving agents without lifecycle management capabilities.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_tender_intelligenceAInspect
Retrieves tender intelligence including daily digest and award history. Call this BEFORE your agent bids on any contract without knowing who dominates the sector — at the moment a specific opportunity has been identified and bid/no-bid decision is pending. Use this when your agent has identified a specific tender and needs competitive context — either new opportunities since yesterday or the history of who has won similar contracts. DAILY_DIGEST: all new tenders last 24h for monitored keywords. AWARD_HISTORY: past contract winners for a keyword. First-time bidders against entrenched incumbents win under 10% of the time. Do not bid without running AWARD_HISTORY first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | DAILY_DIGEST: new tenders in last 24hrs. AWARD_HISTORY: past contract winners. | |
| limit | No | Max results per source for AWARD_HISTORY (default 10) | |
| keyword | No | Keyword for award history search. Required for AWARD_HISTORY. | |
| sources | No | Sources to search. Defaults to all three. | |
| keywords | No | Keywords to monitor or search (e.g. ["cybersecurity", "cloud infrastructure"]). Required for DAILY_DIGEST. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | |
| status | No | Present on the free-tier preview path |
| message | No | |
| checked_at | No | |
| _disclaimer | No | |
| upgrade_url | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It correctly implies a read-only retrieval operation and discloses a key behavioral insight (first-time bidders vs incumbents). Could explicitly state read-only, but no contradictions.
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?
Description is moderately sized and front-loaded with purpose. Some redundancy (e.g., 'at the moment ... is pending') but overall well-structured with clear mode details.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, output schema present), the description fully covers when, why, and how to use it, including behavioral warnings. Output schema handles return value documentation.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context about mode usage but no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it retrieves tender intelligence with two specific modes (DAILY_DIGEST and AWARD_HISTORY). It distinguishes from sibling 'search_tenders' by specifying it's for competitive context when a specific tender is identified.
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?
Explicitly states when to call (before bidding on a contract, when a specific opportunity is identified), what each mode does, and provides a strong usage rule: 'Do not bid without running AWARD_HISTORY first.' Also warns about first-time bidder win rates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_tendersAInspect
Searches active government tenders across UK, EU, and US. Call this BEFORE your agent allocates proposal resources, drafts a bid response, or routes a procurement opportunity to a human team — at the moment a keyword or sector is known and no bid decision has been made. Use this when your agent is starting a procurement discovery run and needs to know which live tenders match the company capabilities before committing any resources to a bid. Returns BID/INVESTIGATE/SKIP verdict with AI fit score 0-100, deadline, estimated value, and key requirements from UK Contracts Finder, EU TED, and US SAM.gov simultaneously. A missed tender deadline cannot be recovered. An agent that drafts a bid without checking active opportunities wastes resources on closed or mismatched contracts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results per source (default 10, max 25) | |
| keyword | Yes | Search keyword — company capability, product type, or service (e.g. "cybersecurity", "catering", "IT support") | |
| sources | No | Which sources to search. Defaults to all three: ["uk","eu","us"] | |
| days_old | No | Only return tenders published in the last N days (default 30) | |
| min_score | No | Only return tenders scoring above this threshold (default 50). Only applies when company_profile is provided. | |
| company_profile | No | Description of the company capabilities and what contracts they are looking for. Used for AI fit scoring. More detail = better scores. If omitted, results are returned unscored. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| errors | No | |
| keyword | Yes | |
| scoring | No | Present only when company_profile was provided |
| tenders | Yes | |
| checked_at | Yes | |
| _disclaimer | Yes | |
| total_found | Yes | |
| _intelligence | No | Always-present upsell hook -- not gated by tier |
| sources_searched | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses return type (verdict, score, deadline, value, requirements) and warns about missed deadlines and wasted resources. Does not mention authentication or rate limits, but implies read-only safe operation.
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?
Description is somewhat verbose with multiple sentences including warnings, but front-loaded with purpose and usage. Could be slightly more concise.
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?
Covers all parameters, return values, and sources. Output schema exists. Provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining that company_profile enables AI scoring and that omitting it returns unscored results, which goes beyond schema descriptions.
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?
Clearly states 'Searches active government tenders across UK, EU, and US' with specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling tool by specifying its role as the initial search tool.
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?
Explicitly provides context: 'Call this BEFORE...' and 'Use this when starting a procurement discovery run'. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but gives clear situational guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!