Skip to main content
Glama

List Proposed Arms Sales Notices

arms_sales_notices
Read-onlyIdempotent

List proposed sales notified to Congress in the Arms Sales Register, filtered by buyer (a substring of the buyer's name or of the purchaser as printed), year delivered to Congress (from 2017, a year the register carries), contractor family (a substring of a reviewed family name or of a company string as the notices print it) and type (notice, the default, for 36(b)(1) notices, or enhancement for 36(b)(5)(C) reports; the contractor filter applies to notices only); at most 25 rows, the most recently delivered at the top, with the full count. Each notice gives its transmittal number, the purchaser as printed, the dates delivered to Congress and published, the estimated value as printed (the major defense equipment, other and total lines), the items as printed, the principal-contractor sentence and the reviewed families it names, the sales-commission and offsets lines as printed, any emergency sentence quoted where the notice prints one, the corrections applied, and the Federal Register citation and URL; each report gives its original transmittal, its description as printed and any revised or new-items value it prints. A sentence that names a company string still under review is held and not shown. Without a contractor filter the answer gives the count and estimated value of the matching notices; with one, each matched family's count and the value of the matching notices naming it, never added across families. The notices printed with no delivery date and the notice DoD withdrew are listed, each labelled as outside every total. Each row is a proposed sale notified to Congress, and its value is the estimated value the notice prints: never a price, a signed case, a contract or a payment. A company appears only as a notice names it, resolved to the register's reviewed family table: the value of the notices naming a family is shared, never split between the companies a notice names, never added across families and never described as company revenue. 36(b)(5)(C) enhancement or upgrade reports are a separate record type, counted apart; their values are never added to 36(b)(1) values. Every answer carries the register's question note: these are proposed sales the Defense Department notified to Congress, as printed in the Federal Register; a notification is not a completed sale, and the records do not show why any sale was proposed or whether it went ahead. Every answer also carries the side-by-side caption, the as-of date, the date the Federal Register copies are printed through, each file's date, the source page on morvs.ai and the licence. Institutions only: no official, signer, lobbyist, treasurer, candidate or member of Congress is named, and single-person firms are withheld and appear only as counts. No party label is given and no buyer government is characterised.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoOptional record type: notice (36(b)(1) notices, the default) or enhancement (36(b)(5)(C) reports); their values are never added.
yearNoOptional year the notice was delivered to Congress (YYYY, from 2017); a year the register does not carry returns the years it does.
buyerNoOptional case-insensitive buyer name substring, for example Poland or TECRO, or a purchaser as the notices print it; at most 80 characters.
contractorNoOptional contractor family or company string substring as the notices print it, at most 80 characters; 36(b)(1) notices only.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / year / description
      Previous value: -"Optional year the notice was delivered to Congress, 2017 to 2026."New value: +"Optional year the notice was delivered to Congress (YYYY, from 2017); a year the register does not carry returns the years it does."
    • removedInput schema / properties / year / enum
      Removed value: -[
      -  2017,
      -  2018,
      -  2019,
      -  2020,
      -  2021,
      -  2022,
      -  2023,
      -  2024,
      -  2025,
      -  2026
      -]
    • addedInput schema / properties / year / maximum
      Added value: +2100
    • addedInput schema / properties / year / minimum
      Added value: +1900
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, but the description goes far beyond them: 25-row cap, most-recent-first ordering, full count inclusion, held company names, totals excluded for undated and withdrawn notices, separate treatment of enhancement reports, and the mandatory question note and caption. This is exceptionally rich behavioral disclosure.

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 key purpose and filters are front-loaded in the opening sentence, but the description then sprawls into a dense paragraph with repeated caveats (e.g., value never added across families appears more than once). Much of the latter content is valuable, but the whole is longer and less scannable than ideal.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description supplies all the return-shape, exclusion, total, and disclaimer information an agent needs to interpret results correctly. It is arguably overcomplete, but nothing essential 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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the type enum and contractor's notice-only restriction. The description repeats those semantics rather than adding new syntax or defaults beyond the schema, so 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?

First sentence states a specific verb (list) and resource (proposed sales notified to Congress in the Arms Sales Register), plus the filter dimensions. It clearly distinguishes this as the general list versus narrower siblings like arms_sales_buyer or arms_sales_contractor, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

The description explains behavioral conditions well—contractor filter applies to notices only, without a contractor filter you get counts and values, with one you get per-family counts—but it never states when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as arms_sales_summary or arms_sales_buyer. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.