SiteCheck Company Records

Defense Logistics Agency RFQs, solicitations

gov_dibbs_rfq

Read-only

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) RFQs, solicitations, pre-solicitations, sources-sought and award notices as published on SAM.gov Contract Opportunities (official US federal source), searchable by keyword, NSN or part number. Returns solicitation number, type, title, office, dates, short description and SAM.gov link. Small-value RFQs that DLA posts only inside DIBBS (behind a DoD consent banner) are not included. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gov_dibbs_rfq"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page 1-100
`type`	No	Notice type filter (optional)
`limit`	No	Results per page 1-25 (default 10)
`query`	No	Keyword, NSN (e.g. 4810011164869) or part number; empty = newest DLA notices
`activeOnly`	No	Only active notices (default true)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`count`	No
`items`	No
`query`	No
`total`	No
`source`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say read-only and open-world; the description goes well beyond by disclosing a significant coverage gap (DIBBS-hosted RFQs behind a DoD consent banner are excluded), the exact cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc), and that failed calls are free. It also summarizes the return payload, which removes ambiguity about what a successful call yields.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three information-dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and source, followed by the exclusion and then the cost. Nothing is redundant or padded, and the pricing detail is placed last where it does not interrupt tool selection.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With annotations, a fully described 5-parameter schema, and an output schema, the description covers the remaining agent-relevant concerns: data provenance, coverage limits, cost and billing behavior. Nothing needed to decide or invoke correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter documented including the enum values, page/limit ranges, and the empty-query behavior. The description restates the keyword/NSN/part-number search semantics but adds no format guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (DLA RFQs, solicitations, pre-solicitations, sources-sought, award notices) and an explicit authoritative source (SAM.gov Contract Opportunities), plus the searchable keys (keyword, NSN, part number). The DIBBS exclusion draws a clear boundary that separates it from generic tender/notice tools in the sibling list.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete usage context – search by keyword, NSN or part number, with the empty-query default of newest DLA notices – and implicitly signals when not to rely on it by naming DIBBS-only small-value RFQs as out of scope. It does not point to a specific alternative sibling tool for federal contract awards or EU/UK tenders, so routing is left partly to the agent.

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

All SiteCheck Company Records 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.

Resources

Need Help?