Search SAM.gov for federal contract opportunities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max rows to return (1-100) | |
| agency | No | filter by agency / organization name | |
| keyword | No | free-text search term | |
| set_aside | No | SAM type-of-set-aside code (e.g. "SBA" for small business) | |
| naics_code | No | filter by NAICS industry code |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only mentions 'search' with no detail on output format, pagination, side effects, or data limits. This is minimal and insufficient for a full understanding of behavior.
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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It directly states the action and target, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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 simplicity of the tool, the description is minimal and lacks important context such as what the results look like, how to interpret them, or any limitations. The presence of sibling tools without differentiation further reduces contextual completeness.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage of all five parameters with descriptions, meeting the baseline. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the score remains at the baseline of 3.
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 the tool searches SAM.gov for federal contract opportunities, meeting the basic purpose clarity. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_awards or search_grants, which could cause confusion in selection.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any indication of appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or differentiation from similar search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.