SignalTender B2B, GovCon & LegalTech MCP Server

Analyze GovCon Post-Award Debriefing, FAR 15.506 Q&A & GAO Bid-Protest Viability

analyze_debriefing_bid_protest

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze an Unsuccessful Offeror Notice, SSEB evaluation scorecard, RFP Section M criteria, and submitted proposal excerpts to generate strategic FAR 15.506 / DFARS 252.215-7016 Enhanced Debriefing follow-up questions, a 0-100 GAO Bid-Protest Viability Score, a Go/No-Go protest recommendation, CICA 31 U.S.C. 3553 automatic stay deadline calculations, a 4-C.F.R. Part 21 Protest Grounds Matrix (Unstated Evaluation Criteria, Disparate Treatment, Flawed Best-Value Tradeoff, Misleading Discussions), and an Executive Recompete/Corrective-Action Playbook. This is a read-only, stateless post-award diagnostic and debriefing analysis call that provides structured procurement intelligence rather than formal legal representation (requires X-RapidAPI-Key; unsuccessful_offeror_notice_and_debrief_text accepts 30 to 100,000 characters, rfp_section_m_and_submitted_proposal_excerpts accepts 30 to 100,000 characters, optional award_and_debrief_timeline_context anchors the 10-day GAO filing and 5-day CICA stay clock, and target_acquisition_regime calibrates rules across DoD DFARS Enhanced Debriefings, Civilian FAR Part 15, FAR 16.505 Task Orders >$10M/$35M, and FAR 8.405-2 GSA MAS). Use this tool after contract award notification when preparing for a FAR 15.506 post-award debriefing or evaluating GAO/COFC bid-protest grounds; use match_capability_statement instead for pre-bid Gate-1 Bid/No-Bid Pwin scoring, or analyze_rfp_amendment_diff for pre-award SF-30 solicitation amendments. Use this tool when evaluating an unsuccessful offeror notice or preparing FAR 15.506 enhanced debriefing questions and GAO/COFC bid-protest viability analyses; use generate_cpars_past_performance or generate_post_award_cpar_rebuttal instead for CPARS performance evaluations.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`analysis_mode`	No	Perspective mode: 'unsuccessful_offeror_debrief_and_protest' (default, FAR 15.506 debrief questions + GAO protest merits audit), 'winning_awardee_intervention_defense' (defend contract award as Intervenor), or 'pre_award_competitive_range_exclusion' (FAR 15.505 exclusion challenge).	unsuccessful_offeror_debrief_and_protest
`procurement_jurisdiction`	No	Governing procurement protest forum and jurisdiction.	dod_dfars_215_506_enhanced
`award_notice_or_debrief_text`	Yes	Raw text from the Agency Unsuccessful Offeror Notice, Post-Award Debriefing letter/slides, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) excerpt, or competitor protest allegations.
`rfp_section_m_and_bidder_context`	Yes	RFP Section L/M evaluation criteria, weighting hierarchy (Best-Value Tradeoff vs. LPTA), and summary of the bidder's submitted ratings, evaluated price, and proposal strengths/weaknesses.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`statutory_deadline_calendar`	No	Strict FAR 15.505/15.506, DFARS 215.506-70, and CICA (31 U.S.C. 3553) automatic-stay deadline schedule.
`recommended_executive_decision`	No	Clear executive recommendation (e.g., 'PURSUE_ENHANCED_DEBRIEF_THEN_GAO_PROTEST', 'FILE_AGENCY_LEVEL_CORRECTIVE_ACTION_REQUEST', 'DO_NOT_PROTEST_PRESERVE_CUSTOMER_GOODWILL', or 'INTERVENE_AND_MOVE_TO_DISMISS').
`far_15_506_debriefing_questions`	No	Strategic FAR 15.506 / DoD Enhanced Debriefing questions to submit to the Contracting Officer.
`protest_grounds_or_defense_matrix`	No	Detailed GAO/COFC protest grounds (or Awardee Intervenor defenses) mapped to FAR/GAO precedent.
`protest_viability_or_defense_score`	No	Overall 0-100 score measuring GAO/COFC protest sustain probability (or Awardee Defense strength when in winning_awardee_intervention_defense mode).
`task_order_jurisdictional_bar_check`	No	Audit of FASA task-order protest jurisdiction bars under FAR 16.505(a)(10) ($35M DoD / $10M Civilian threshold) or FAR 8.405-5 GSA Schedule rules.
`ready_to_send_debrief_request_or_counsel_memo`	No	Ready-to-send FAR 15.506 Enhanced Debriefing Request Letter & Questions (or Executive Bid-Protest / Intervenor Strategy Memo).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed23 schema fields changedOct 29, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / analysis_mode

Added value: +{
+  "default": "unsuccessful_offeror_debrief_and_protest",
+  "description": "Perspective mode: 'unsuccessful_offeror_debrief_and_protest' (default, FAR 15.506 debrief questions + GAO protest merits audit), 'winning_awardee_intervention_defense' (defend contract award as Intervenor), or 'pre_award_competitive_range_exclusion' (FAR 15.505 exclusion challenge).",
+  "enum": [
+    "unsuccessful_offeror_debrief_and_protest",
+    "winning_awardee_intervention_defense",
+    "pre_award_competitive_range_exclusion"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / award_and_debrief_timeline_context

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Optional timeline context including contract award notification date, date debriefing was requested, date written/oral debriefing was received, and whether DoD DFARS 252.215-7016 2-business-day Enhanced Debriefing Q&A remains open.",
-  "maxLength": 20000,
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / award_notice_or_debrief_text

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Raw text from the Agency Unsuccessful Offeror Notice, Post-Award Debriefing letter/slides, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) excerpt, or competitor protest allegations.",
+  "maxLength": 100000,
+  "minLength": 20,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / procurement_jurisdiction

Added value: +{
+  "default": "dod_dfars_215_506_enhanced",
+  "description": "Governing procurement protest forum and jurisdiction.",
+  "enum": [
+    "federal_far_gao_cofc",
+    "dod_dfars_215_506_enhanced",
+    "gsa_mas_task_order_far_8_405_5",
+    "idid_gwac_task_order_far_16_505",
+    "state_sled_procurement_protest"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / rfp_section_m_and_bidder_context

Added value: +{
+  "description": "RFP Section L/M evaluation criteria, weighting hierarchy (Best-Value Tradeoff vs. LPTA), and summary of the bidder's submitted ratings, evaluated price, and proposal strengths/weaknesses.",
+  "maxLength": 100000,
+  "minLength": 20,
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / rfp_section_m_and_submitted_proposal_excerpts

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Relevant RFP Section L/M evaluation criteria, relative factor weights, and excerpts from your submitted proposal that directly address or refute the weaknesses or deficiencies cited by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) (30 to 100,000 characters).",
-  "maxLength": 100000,
-  "minLength": 30,
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / target_acquisition_regime

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "dod_dfars_enhanced_debrief_far_15_506",
-  "description": "Governing acquisition regime: 'dod_dfars_enhanced_debrief_far_15_506' (default DoD Enhanced Post-Award Debriefing under DFARS 252.215-7016 & FAR 15.506), 'civilian_far_15_506_negotiated' (Civilian Agency FAR Part 15), 'far_16_505_idid_task_order' (IDIQ/GWAC Task Order under FAR 16.505(b)(6) with >$10M Civilian / >$35M DoD GAO protest threshold), or 'far_8_405_gsa_fss_brief_explanation' (GSA MAS Schedule order under FAR 8.405-2(d)).",
-  "enum": [
-    "dod_dfars_enhanced_debrief_far_15_506",
-    "civilian_far_15_506_negotiated",
-    "far_16_505_idid_task_order",
-    "far_8_405_gsa_fss_brief_explanation"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / unsuccessful_offeror_notice_and_debrief_text

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Raw text from the Agency Notice of Unsuccessful Offeror, Pre-Award/Post-Award Debriefing slides or letter, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) redacted summary, and adjectival/price scores for the Awardee vs. your offer (30 to 100,000 characters).",
-  "maxLength": 100000,
-  "minLength": 30,
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "unsuccessful_offeror_notice_and_debrief_text",
-  "rfp_section_m_and_submitted_proposal_excerpts"
-]New value: +[
+  "award_notice_or_debrief_text",
+  "rfp_section_m_and_bidder_context"
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / cica_automatic_stay_and_filing_deadlines

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Calculated CICA 31 U.S.C. 3553 automatic stay deadline (5 calendar days post-debrief close) and GAO 10-day timeliness deadline.",
-  "type": "object"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / corrective_action_and_recompete_playbook

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Executive action plan for agency corrective action or positioning for task-order on-ramps and recompetes.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / far_15_506_debriefing_questions

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Strategic FAR 15.506 / DoD Enhanced Debriefing questions to submit to the Contracting Officer.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / far_15_506_enhanced_debriefing_questions

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Precision written questions for the Contracting Officer under FAR 15.506 / DFARS 252.215-7016.",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / gao_protest_grounds_matrix

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Evaluated bid-protest grounds with GAO case-law precedents, RFP/proposal evidence, and competitive prejudice analysis.",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / protest_go_no_go_recommendation

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Strategic post-award recommendation (e.g., FILE_GAO_PROTEST_WITH_CICA_STAY, SUBMIT_ENHANCED_DEBRIEF_QUESTIONS_FIRST, DO_NOT_PROTEST_PIVOT_TO_RECOMPETE).",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / protest_grounds_or_defense_matrix

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Detailed GAO/COFC protest grounds (or Awardee Intervenor defenses) mapped to FAR/GAO precedent.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / protest_viability_or_defense_score

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Overall 0-100 score measuring GAO/COFC protest sustain probability (or Awardee Defense strength when in winning_awardee_intervention_defense mode).",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / protest_viability_score

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Quantitative GAO / Agency-Level Bid-Protest viability score from 0 to 100.",
-  "type": "integer"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / ready_to_send_debrief_request_or_counsel_memo

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Ready-to-send FAR 15.506 Enhanced Debriefing Request Letter & Questions (or Executive Bid-Protest / Intervenor Strategy Memo).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / recommended_executive_decision

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Clear executive recommendation (e.g., 'PURSUE_ENHANCED_DEBRIEF_THEN_GAO_PROTEST', 'FILE_AGENCY_LEVEL_CORRECTIVE_ACTION_REQUEST', 'DO_NOT_PROTEST_PRESERVE_CUSTOMER_GOODWILL', or 'INTERVENE_AND_MOVE_TO_DISMISS').",
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / sseb_scorecard_and_tradeoff_audit

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Comparative audit of Awardee vs. Bidder adjectival ratings, price premium, and FAR 15.308 Best-Value Tradeoff flaws.",
-  "type": "object"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / statutory_deadline_calendar

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Strict FAR 15.505/15.506, DFARS 215.506-70, and CICA (31 U.S.C. 3553) automatic-stay deadline schedule.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / task_order_jurisdictional_bar_check

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Audit of FASA task-order protest jurisdiction bars under FAR 16.505(a)(10) ($35M DoD / $10M Civilian threshold) or FAR 8.405-5 GSA Schedule rules.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'read-only, stateless' largely restates structured data. The genuinely additive disclosures are the X-RapidAPI-Key auth requirement, the 30-100,000 character input band, and the 'not formal legal representation' disclaimer. It omits rate limits, latency/cost expectations, and what happens when the supplied timeline context is absent from the CICA/GAO clock math.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Two enormous run-on sentences pack in a dozen enumerated artifacts, mid-sentence parameter trivia, and an auth note, so the core purpose is not front-loaded. The closing sentence repeats the 'use this tool when' clause already stated a sentence earlier, giving zero new information. Substantial material could be cut without losing selection signal.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is correctly omitted, and the description covers regimes, deadlines, perspectives, and sibling routing well. However, for a 4-parameter tool it leaves the parameter-to-schema mapping inconsistent, so an agent reading only the description could fail to supply the required `award_notice_or_debrief_text` and `rfp_section_m_and_bidder_context` arguments. The `winning_awardee_intervention_defense` and `pre_award_competitive_range_exclusion` modes are only visible via the schema, not developed in the prose.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 would apply, but the description actively conflicts with the schema: it names `unsuccessful_offeror_notice_and_debrief_text`, `rfp_section_m_and_submitted_proposal_excerpts`, and `target_acquisition_regime`, none of which exist in the schema (actual properties are `award_notice_or_debrief_text`, `rfp_section_m_and_bidder_context`, `procurement_jurisdiction`), and it says 30 characters where the schema enforces minLength 20. The only real semantic addition is that the optional timeline context anchors the 10-day GAO filing and 5-day CICA stay clocks, which the schema does not say.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (analyze) plus the exact input artifacts and enumerates concrete outputs: FAR 15.506 debrief questions, a 0-100 GAO protest viability score, a Go/No-Go recommendation, CICA stay calculations, and a 4-part protest grounds matrix. It is unambiguously a post-award debrief/protest diagnostic and clearly distinct from pre-award siblings. It loses a point because the purpose statement is buried in two very long run-on sentences and because it references input artifacts by names that do not match the schema properties.

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?

It gives an explicit usage window (after contract award notification, when preparing for a FAR 15.506 debrief or evaluating GAO/COFC grounds) and names three concrete alternatives with selecting conditions: `match_capability_statement` for pre-bid Gate-1 Pwin scoring, `analyze_rfp_amendment_diff` for pre-award SF-30 amendments, and `generate_cpars_past_performance`/`generate_post_award_cpar_rebuttal` for CPARS work. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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

All SignalTender B2B, GovCon & LegalTech MCP Server tools Inspect

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.