Skip to main content
Glama

Tender MCP

by io.github.OjasKord

get_tender_intelligence

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYesDAILY_DIGEST: new tenders in last 24hrs. AWARD_HISTORY: past contract winners.
limitNoMax results per source for AWARD_HISTORY (default 10)
keywordNoKeyword for award history search. Required for AWARD_HISTORY.
sourcesNoSources to search. Defaults to all three.
keywordsNoKeywords to monitor or search (e.g. ["cybersecurity", "cloud infrastructure"]). Required for DAILY_DIGEST.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYes
statusNoPresent on the free-tier preview path
messageNo
checked_atNo
_disclaimerNo
upgrade_urlNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Shape varies by mode (DAILY_DIGEST/AWARD_HISTORY) and tier (free preview vs paid full access) -- fields below are the common envelope.",
+  "properties": {
+    "_disclaimer": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "checked_at": {
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mode": {
+      "enum": [
+        "DAILY_DIGEST",
+        "AWARD_HISTORY"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Present on the free-tier preview path",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "upgrade_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "mode"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two modes and warns about the irreversibility of bid prices, providing consequential context beyond a simple retrieval statement. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or explicitly state that it is read-only, though these are likely implied by its retrieval nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than necessary, with repetitive emphasis on the importance of award history and the consequences of mispriced bids. While it is front-loaded with the core function and structured clearly, redundant warnings could be trimmed to improve conciseness without losing informational value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's two-mode design, the description adequately covers purpose, when to use each mode, and the recommended workflow. It leverages the output schema and parameter descriptions to avoid duplicating return format or field details, making it complete for the typical use case. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit comparison with the sibling tool, but that is not essential.

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 already describes all five parameters, and the description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the two modes but does not elaborate on the parameters themselves, so the schema carries the heavy lifting and the description offers no additional semantic value.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves tender intelligence including award history and daily digest.' It clearly explains the two modes and positions the tool for bid/no-bid decisions, distinguishing it from generic tender search by focusing on competitive context. This is non-tautological and highly informative.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to invoke the tool: 'Call this BEFORE your agent bids on any contract' and 'Use this when your agent has identified a specific tender and needs competitive context.' It also gives a direct command, 'Do not bid without running AWARD_HISTORY first,' which is clear and actionable, even though it doesn't name the sibling tool as an alternative.

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

All Tender MCP toolsInspect
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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: search_tenders finds active opportunities, while get_tender_intelligence provides award history and daily digest for known keywords. They are complementary rather than overlapping, with no confusion about when to use each.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case: search_tenders and get_tender_intelligence. The verbs 'search' and 'get' match the actions precisely, and there is no mixed convention.

Tool Count3/5

With only two tools, the server feels thin for the tender domain. However, the pair covers a coherent pre-bid research workflow (search then intelligence), so it earns a borderline score rather than a lower one.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover the essential discovery and pricing context: searching active tenders and retrieving award history/monitoring daily digest. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for retrieving full tender documents or tracking bid submissions, but these fall outside the stated pre-bid intelligence scope.

Resources