Skip to main content
Glama

Fac

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Fac Federal Awards By Program

fac_federal_awards_by_program
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the organizations that expended money under a given federal Assistance Listing / CFDA number (e.g. "93.224" community health centers, "84.010" Title I, "20.205" highway planning), ranked by dollars expended, with the recipient name, state, audit year and whether it was a major program. Answers "who spends the money in this federal grant program and how much does each one run".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cfdaNoAssistance Listing / CFDA number. Accepts "93.224", "93-224", "93 224", "93224", or a bare agency prefix "93" for every program at that agency. Aliases: program_number, assistance_listing, program, cfda_number.
limitNoRows to return, 1-200 (default 25).
stateNo2-letter recipient state code to narrow the ranking, e.g. "TX".
audit_yearNoRestrict to one audit year, e.g. 2023.
major_onlyNoKeep only programs audited as major programs.
min_amountNoOnly rows expending at least this many dollars.
include_recipientsNoResolve each report_id to the recipient name and state (default true; one extra local query).
federal_agency_prefixNoTwo-digit agency prefix on its own, e.g. "93" for HHS. Alias: prefix.
federal_award_extensionNoProgram extension on its own, e.g. "224". Alias: extension.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / include_recipients / description
      Previous value: -"Resolve each report_id to the recipient name and state (default true; one extra upstream call)."New value: +"Resolve each report_id to the recipient name and state (default true; one extra local query)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "cfda": "93.224",
-    "limit": 3
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "audit_year": 2024,
+    "cfda": "93.224",
+    "limit": 10
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail — that include_recipients costs "one extra local query" — but does not discuss pagination, result caps beyond limit, or data freshness.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, and the illustrative examples are compact. Slightly dense with three parenthetical CFDA examples, but nothing is redundant enough to cut.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (recipient name, state, audit year, major-program flag), and it flags the extra-query cost of include_recipients. For a nine-parameter, all-optional filtering tool this is close to complete, though it never explains what happens when no cfda is supplied.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters, including accepted CFDA formats and aliases. The description echoes the CFDA example and the returned field set but adds no syntax or default information beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (organizations expending money under a federal Assistance Listing), names concrete CFDA examples, and specifies the ranking and returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like fac_search_audits or fac_recipient_audit_history, which operate on audits rather than program-level rankings.

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 closing sentence frames the question the tool answers ("who spends the money in this federal grant program"), which implies when to reach for it, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is given. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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