Skip to main content
Glama

Fac

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Fac Audit Findings

fac_audit_findings
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit findings recorded against single audits — the compliance exceptions, material weaknesses, significant deficiencies, questioned costs and repeat findings that auditors reported. Query by report_id, or by recipient name/UEI to sweep every audit that recipient filed. Answers "has this grant recipient had audit findings, and were they material or repeated".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ueiNoRecipient UEI; resolves that recipient's audits, then their findings. Alias: auditee_uei.
limitNoMax finding rows to return, 1-200 (default 50).
report_idNoFAC report id to pull findings for. Aliases: id, audit_id.
audit_yearNoRestrict the resolved audits to one audit year (used with auditee_name or uei).
auditee_nameNoRecipient name substring; the tool resolves matching audits first, then their findings. Aliases: query, q, name.
include_textNoAlso attach the narrative finding text when FAC recorded any (default false — the text rows are long; a pre-2022 migrated audit often has none on file).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / include_text / description
      Previous value: -"Also attach the narrative finding text when FAC exposes it (default false — the text rows are long)."New value: +"Also attach the narrative finding text when FAC recorded any (default false — the text rows are long; a pre-2022 migrated audit often has none on file)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "limit": 5,
-    "uei": "MPUMNJU3G315"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "limit": 25,
+    "report_id": "2024-08-GSAFAC-0000063952"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about the data itself — that name/UEI queries resolve audits first and then sweep all of them, and what the findings rows represent — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or how resolution ambiguity (multiple matching recipients) is handled.

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?

Three tight sentences: domain definition first, query modes second, the answering question last. No filler, and the most important framing (what a finding is) is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it does reasonably well by enumerating the finding categories an agent should expect. The absence of any note on result shape (row-per-finding vs. nested), ordering, or truncation behavior keeps it short of fully complete.

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 aliases, ranges and defaults are already documented in the schema, and the description's 'resolves that recipient's audits, then their findings' semantics is also repeated in the uei/auditee_name schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate: the description adds no parameter detail beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Audit findings recorded against single audits') and enumerates the concrete finding types it returns (compliance exceptions, material weaknesses, questioned costs, repeat findings). It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling fac_findings_search.

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?

Gives two query paths (by report_id, or by recipient name/UEI) and frames the use case as answering 'has this grant recipient had audit findings, and were they material or repeated'. That is implied usage rather than explicit when-to-use guidance, and it names no alternative tool or exclusion against fac_findings_search or fac_get_audit.

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

All Fac toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources