FedWatch — Federal Funding & Lien Watcher

enforcement_search

Federal enforcement sources — currently ALL gated or planned, and the tools say exactly why per source: epa_echo (EPA ECHO DFR services documented but the documented calls did not reproduce from fleet egress on 2026-10-16 — adapter deferred, not faked), osha_enforcement (DOL API now requires a registered key; none is held and registration is an account creation), fcc_uls / faa_registry (bulk-file ETL shapes, not query APIs). Calls return the named gate for the chosen source.

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": "enforcement_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`zip`	No	ZIP filter (reserved)
`limit`	No	Maximum returned records (tier-capped)
`state`	No	State filter (reserved)
`keyword`	No	Keyword (reserved for promoted adapters)
`source_id`	No	Source id: epa_echo (default), osha_enforcement, fcc_uls, faa_registry

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that all sources are gated, gives the specific reason per source (fleet egress failure on 2026-10-16, missing DOL API key requiring account creation, bulk-file ETL sources), and states what a call returns. Minor gaps remain — no mention of rate limits, cost, or whether any source might become active.

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 core fact is front-loaded, but the body is one long run-on sentence with heavy nested parentheses that is hard to parse quickly. Every per-source detail earns its place, yet the packaging could be restructured into shorter clauses without losing content.

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?

For a tool that returns no data, the most important thing an agent needs — that it is gated and what the gate is per source — is fully present, and parameters are covered by a complete schema. There is no output schema, and the description does state the return shape ('the named gate'), so remaining gaps are small.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description only reinforces the source_id enumeration and the fact that each maps to its own gate; the 'reserved' filters get no extra semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names the resource (federal enforcement sources) and states unambiguously that every source is currently gated or planned and that calls return a named gate. The verb is only implicit ('search' via the tool name), but the operative outcome — no records, gate message — is stated precisely and distinguishes it from data-returning siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: an agent can infer this tool yields no records today and only returns gate explanations, which is real guidance. However, it never says when to prefer a sibling (e.g., businesses_search, permits_search) or whether the tool should be called at all for a given question.

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

All FedWatch — Federal Funding & Lien Watcher 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?