Skip to main content
Glama

Get Foreign Agent (FARA) Money Totals

foreign_agents_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Totals from the Foreign Agents Register, built from the Justice Department's FARA records: the money registered foreign agents reported receiving for the registrants' six-month periods ending in 2024 and in 2025, as DOJ's four semi-annual reports to Congress print it, with each report's printed total, DOJ's posting dates, the basis and the change between the two years; amounts DOJ lists as received prior to registration, kept apart and never added to a period; the share for services DOJ lists as lobbying and the full Nature of Services breakdown by year; active registrants and foreign principals by DOJ's own count for each half-year and by DOJ's daily bulk files; the register's eight headlines with their basis; the side-by-side PAC and LDA coverage counts; and the withheld counts. Registration under FARA is a legal disclosure, not a finding of wrongdoing; in the Justice Department's words, registration "does not indicate approval by the United States Government of the activities of registered agents". Amounts are what agents reported receiving for their own six-month periods, as DOJ prints them, never a calendar year of spending; "None Reported" is its own state, never zero. Country strings are DOJ's, as entered by registrants, and are not a statement of U.S. foreign policy. FARA receipts, LDA filing counts and PAC contributions are separate measures, shown side by side and never added. Individuals (individual registrants, single-person firms, individual foreign principals and short-form registrants) are withheld: counted only, never named.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: amounts are per six-month agent periods not calendar years, 'None Reported' is a distinct state, individuals are counted but never named (withheld), prior-to-registration amounts are kept apart and never summed, and FARA/LDA/PAC measures are shown side by side and never added. These are genuine caller-facing rules not in the schema.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The body is one enormous run-on sentence packed with a long inventory of sub-datasets and disclaimers, not front-loaded or scannable. Much of the legal/policy boilerplate ('does not indicate approval by the United States Government...') does not directly help an agent call the tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of explaining return content, and it does so thoroughly (totals, changes, service breakdowns, active registrants/principals, headlines, side-by-side counts, withheld counts). It is arguably over-complete rather than missing anything.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for 0 params is 4 and that holds here.

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?

The opening clause identifies the resource and scope clearly (FARA money totals from DOJ six-month reports for 2024 and 2025), so an agent can tell it is the aggregate/summary tool. It never states an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets' and does not name the entity-level siblings (foreign_agents_registrant, foreign_agents_principal) it contrasts with, leaving differentiation implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description is almost entirely about content and caveats; it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or 'prefer X instead' guidance. An agent must infer that this is the totals/overview tool rather than the per-registrant lookups.

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.