Skip to main content
Glama

Get Federal Advertising Contract Totals

media_money_advertising
Read-onlyIdempotent

Federal advertising (product code R701) and public-relations (R708) contract obligations in the Media Money Register, optionally filtered by agency (a substring of the agency name or a short form such as DHS or DoD), firm (a substring of a reviewed firm's name as the award records carry it) and fiscal year (2017 to 2026). Returns, for each code, the all-agency series, the largest agencies by fiscal year with every other agency shown as the labelled other-agencies remainder, and the reviewed firms' obligations (FY2017 to FY2026, FY2025 and FY2026, as the register publishes them; every other recipient counted as other); for DHS, its R701 and R708 series, R701 by sub-agency and by reviewed firm for FY2024 to FY2026, and its seven campaign task orders with their dates, obligations and outlays as recorded and their competition fields as printed, with no subaward reported on any of them, so the records do not show which outlets carried the advertising; the Defense Department's share of FY2026 R701; and the register's FEC payee check, counted only. A firm is named only when its UEI is reviewed and its name carries a corporate form. Competition fields are shown exactly as FPDS prints them: the extent competed, the reason for other than full and open competition and the number of offers, or not printed. Each figure is named in its record's own words: contract obligations (a subscription is a purchase order, delivery order or definitive contract), grant obligations by assistance listing, Treasury account obligations, termination actions with FPDS's reason code as printed, and the laws' own text; fiscal year 2026 is as reported through the as-of date, as Defense Department contract records reach USAspending about 90 days late. Every answer carries the register's question note: these records show federal award and account obligations and the agencies' own termination records; they do not show what any outlet published, why an award was made or ended, or whether any payment affected coverage. Every answer also carries the side-by-side caption, the as-of date, each file's date, the source page on morvs.ai and the licence. Where FEC figures appear, the answer quotes the FEC's restriction on the sale or use of individual contributor information (52 U.S.C. 30111(a)(4)). Institutions only: no official, consultant, journalist, treasurer or candidate is named; withheld recipients and the advertising firms whose name is a person's full name appear only as counts. A name that matches only a withheld string answers exactly like a name that matches nothing. No party label is given and no outlet's content is characterised.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
firmNoOptional case-insensitive substring of a reviewed advertising or public-relations firm name as the award records carry it; at most 80 characters.
agencyNoOptional agency name substring, or a short form such as DHS, DoD or HHS; at most 80 characters; DHS rows show with no agency or with DHS.
fiscal_yearNoOptional fiscal year, 2017 to 2026; firm rows are published for FY2017-26, FY2025 and FY2026 only.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / fiscal_year / enum
      Removed value: -[
      -  2017,
      -  2018,
      -  2019,
      -  2020,
      -  2021,
      -  2022,
      -  2023,
      -  2024,
      -  2025,
      -  2026
      -]
    • addedInput schema / properties / fiscal_year / maximum
      Added value: +2100
    • addedInput schema / properties / fiscal_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 establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior; beyond that the description discloses return contents, FY2026 reporting lag (~90 days), missing subaward linkage, suppression/privacy rules, and caveats about what records cannot show. This is unusually rich behavioral context and does not contradict the annotations.

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 definition is a single massive, semicolon-heavy block that front-loads the scope but then piles on output structure, caveats, legal citations, and privacy rules without headings or paragraph breaks. The content is often relevant, but the structure makes it hard to scan and several details could be shortened or moved.

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?

Given no output schema, the description must carry return shape and limitations, and it does: it describes per-code series, agency rollups, DHS specifics, DoD share, FEC payee counts, as-of dates, licences, and what the records do not show. It is complete for a complex register tool.

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?

Schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage; the description adds filter semantics such as short-form agency matching (DHS/DoD), reviewed-firm/UEI naming rules, withheld-recipient behavior, and fiscal-year publication limits. That is meaningful enrichment beyond the schema, though much of the parameter detail is repeated.

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 description names the exact resource (federal advertising and public-relations contract obligations in the Media Money Register), product codes R701/R708, and filter scope. It does not explicitly contrast with media_money_summary or media_money_family, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

It explains optional filters and data scope but never states when to choose this tool over media_money_summary, media_money_family, or media_money_terminations, nor any when-not conditions. Usage is inferable from the product-code focus, but no explicit routing guidance is given.

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.