Tender MCP
Server Details
Government tender search for AI agents. UK, EU and US procurement opportunities.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- OjasKord/tender-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 4.6/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: search_tenders finds active opportunities, while get_tender_intelligence provides competitive context and historical data. No ambiguity in their roles.
Both tools use consistent snake_case verb_noun naming: search_tenders and get_tender_intelligence. The pattern is predictable and clear.
Only two tools is too few for a domain that mentions bidding, proposal management, and monitoring keywords. The server feels incomplete; additional tools for managing tenders or bids would be expected.
The tools cover searching and intelligence retrieval but lack essential operations like creating or updating tender records, submitting bids, or managing keywords. The server surface has significant gaps for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_tender_intelligenceAInspect
Retrieves tender intelligence including award history and daily digest. 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 the history of who has won similar contracts or new opportunities since yesterday. AWARD_HISTORY: past contract winners for a keyword. DAILY_DIGEST: all new tenders last 24h for monitored keywords. Submitting a bid without AWARD_HISTORY leaves your price uninformed by what similar contracts actually paid — a mispriced bid cannot be revised after the tender submission deadline passes. 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, but the description discloses the two modes, their purposes, and consequences of not using the tool (mispriced bid). It does not mention potential rate limits or data freshness, but is otherwise transparent.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose but is somewhat lengthy. However, every sentence provides value, and the structure is logical with mode-specific guidance.
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 complexity (5 parameters, output schema present), the description covers modes, prerequisites, and consequences. It does not detail output format, but that's handled by output schema.
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 parameter descriptions. The description adds context beyond schema, such as the consequence of not using AWARD_HISTORY, but the schema already defines parameters well.
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 including award history and daily digest. It distinguishes from sibling 'search_tenders' by specifying it's for competitive context before bidding decisions.
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?
Explicit guidance: 'Call this BEFORE your agent bids', 'Do not bid without running AWARD_HISTORY first', and specific contexts for each mode (AWARD_HISTORY vs DAILY_DIGEST).
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. Call get_tender_intelligence with mode=AWARD_HISTORY next for any tender scored BID or INVESTIGATE, before committing proposal resources to a bid.
| 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?
Describes output format (verdict, score, deadline, value, requirements) and mentions risk of missed deadlines. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Could mention read-only nature or rate limits, but sufficient.
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?
Single paragraph, front-loaded with the action, each sentence adds value. No redundancy, efficient use of words.
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 main purpose, usage, output, and next steps. Does not discuss pagination or data freshness beyond 'active', but given the context (6 params, output schema, sibling tool), it is largely complete.
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%, so description adds value by explaining default behaviors (sources default to all three), conditional behavior (min_score only applies with company_profile), and the role of company_profile in scoring. Provides workflow context beyond 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?
Clearly states it searches active government tenders across UK, EU, and US. Provides specific context for when to call (before bid decisions) and distinguishes from sibling tool get_tender_intelligence by prescribing next steps.
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 says when to use (when keyword is known and no bid decision made), warns against not using it (wasted resources, missed deadlines), and gives a clear workflow (call first, then get_tender_intelligence for BID/INVESTIGATE).
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!