Fetch full detail for a Grants.gov opportunity by its numeric opportunity id (the 'id' field from grants_search, e.g. '334326'). Returns description, eligibility, funding (ceiling/floor/estimated), key dates, CFDA numbers and the agency contact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| opportunityId | Yes | Numeric opportunity id from a grants_search result (e.g. '334326'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful return-value context by listing the kinds of data returned (description, eligibility, funding, dates, CFDA numbers, agency contact), which is useful absent an output schema.
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 two sentences with no filler. The core action, identifier source, and return contents are all front-loaded, making it quick for an agent to parse and act on.
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?
For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the input provenance and the expected return fields. It is sufficient for correct invocation; a minor gap is that it does not describe behavior when the id is not found.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already explains that opportunityId is a numeric opportunity id from grants_search with an example. The tool description reinforces this but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Fetch full detail'), a specific resource ('Grants.gov opportunity'), and a precise identifier ('numeric opportunity id'). It also ties the id to grants_search, which distinguishes it from the main sibling tool in this domain.
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?
The description clearly indicates that this tool is for fetching details after obtaining an opportunity id from grants_search. It does not explicitly say 'use grants_search when you lack an id', but the dependency is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.
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.