Skip to main content
Glama

Canada Tenders

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewAdmin

Canada Search Awards

canada_search_awards
Read-onlyIdempotent

PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH for Government of Canada contract AWARDS — "who won federal contract X", "recent CanadaBuys awards for consulting", "which supplier was awarded a government contract in Quebec". Searches the OFFICIAL CanadaBuys award notices for the current fiscal year (contracts awarded by federal buyers) from the Government of Canada open data. Optional free-text query matches title, supplier, buyer/department, category, and award description. Returns each award shaped with reference/contract number, English title, awarded supplier, buyer (contracting entity), contract value and currency, award date, procurement category, and the notice URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results to return (default 20, max 100).
queryNoOptional free-text search (case-insensitive). Matched against title, supplier, buyer, category, and award description. Omit to list the most recent awards.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "query": "consulting"
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 5,
+    "query": "software Quebec"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it searches official CanadaBuys notices for the current fiscal year, matches against specific fields, and returns shaped awards with detailed fields. No contradictions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the key instruction to prefer over web search. It is somewhat verbose but every sentence adds value, including example queries and return fields. Could be slightly more concise but effectively communicates.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers return shape adequately. It explains what the tool does, how to use parameters, data source, and what fields are returned. For a simple search tool with two optional parameters, this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds that the query is case-insensitive and matches specific fields (title, supplier, buyer, category, award description), which adds meaning beyond the schema. For limit, it confirms default 20 and max 100, matching the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches for Government of Canada contract awards from the official CanadaBuys database, specifies the scope (current fiscal year), and lists the returned fields. It also explicitly recommends it over web search, distinguishing it from general search tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a clear preference over web search and gives example queries. It mentions omitting query to list recent awards but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives to siblings like canada_search_tenders.

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

All Canada Tenders toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources