查询 hndcw.com 全国政府招投标/建设项目库。可按关键词、省份、城市、行业大类、预算区间、截止时间筛选，返回项目标题、地区、预算(万元)、业主单位、代理机构、阶段、公告日期与原文链接。适合"帮我找XX招标项目""查海口社会调查类标的""列最近一周预算50万以下的标的"等问法。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | 城市名，如"海口""三亚" | |
| limit | No | 返回条数，默认 10，最大 50 | |
| keyword | No | 标题或摘要关键词，如"社会调查""信息化""海南" | |
| industry | No | 行业大类 A/B/C（工程/货物/服务），可不填 | |
| province | No | 省名，如"海南""广东""广西" | |
| maxBudget | No | 最大预算(万元) | |
| minBudget | No | 最小预算(万元) | |
| closingWithinDays | No | 只看未来N天内投标截止的项目，如7=一周内截止。可不填 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / closingWithinDaysAdded value: +{
+ "description": "只看未来N天内投标截止的项目，如7=一周内截止。可不填",
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully enumerates the returned fields (title, region, budget in 万元, owner, agency, stage, date, source link), but discloses nothing about permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit note.
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?
A single tight paragraph ordered as resource → filter dimensions → return fields → example phrasings. Every sentence carries information, though the return-field enumeration is dense rather than front-loaded for skimming.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and all 8 parameters are documented in the schema. An agent has everything needed to call it; only the absence of any alternative-tool guidance keeps it from being fully complete.
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%, so the schema already documents all 8 optional parameters with examples. The description only restates the filter dimensions at a high level, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema — the expected 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?
Opens with a specific verb+resource plus the data source ('查询 hndcw.com 全国政府招投标/建设项目库'), which tells an agent exactly what corpus is being searched. It is clearly distinct from get_bidding_market_stats and search_policy_documents, though no sibling is named directly.
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?
Three natural-language example queries ('帮我找XX招标项目', '查海口社会调查类标的', '列最近一周预算50万以下的标的') concretely convey the intended usage contexts. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. versus ask_minger_bidding), so no explicit alternative routing.
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.