Skip to main content
Glama

Gets Nz

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Nz Tender Open

nz_tender_open
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all currently open New Zealand government tenders from GETS (gets.govt.nz — the official NZ Government Electronic Tenders Service). PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH for New Zealand public procurement, government contract opportunities, RFPs, RFTs, and requests for quote. Each tender includes reference, title, buying agency (e.g. Ministry of Social Development, Health New Zealand, NZTA, city councils), publish date, close date, UNSPSC categories, region, and the public GETS URL. Optionally narrow with a keyword filter.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of tenders to return (1-300). Default 25.
queryNoOptional keyword filter matched case-insensitively against tender title, agency name, and categories, e.g. "construction", "IT services", "Auckland".

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: +[
+  {
+    "limit": 25
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 50,
+    "query": "construction Auckland"
+  }
+]
  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 safe, idempotent, read-only behavior. The description adds that tenders are 'currently open' and lists included fields, providing useful context beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

For a simple list tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it.

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% with clear descriptions for 'limit' and 'query'. The description mentions an 'optional keyword filter' but adds minimal value beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('List'), resource ('currently open New Zealand government tenders from GETS'), and clarifies the scope. It distinguishes itself from web search and provides examples of tender types.

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 explicitly says 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and gives clear usage context (New Zealand public procurement, RFPs, RFTs). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but is otherwise clear.

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

All Gets Nz 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.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded serve nearly identical purposes, and deep_research further duplicates. Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) also have overlapping scopes, making it hard for an agent to select the correct one without deep inspection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a mix of patterns: some are descriptive phrases (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt), others are domain-prefixed (nz_tender_*, polymarket_*) but lack a uniform verb_noun structure. The ask_pipeworx series diverges from the rest, and verb choices are inconsistent (compare_entities vs scan_competitor_ai_presence).

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the surface is large and feels bloated. The server covers multiple distinct domains (NZ tenders, Polymarket, memory, subscriptions) that could be separate servers. Many tools are variants of the same core functionality (e.g., four ask_pipeworx variants), inflating the count without clear necessity.

Completeness3/5

For a general-purpose data query server, the tool set covers a broad range of sources (SEC, FDA, FRED, etc.) and includes CRUD for memory and subscriptions. However, obvious gaps exist: no dedicated web search tool (ask_pipeworx is for structured data), and NZ coverage is limited to tenders only. Missing update/delete for some resources (e.g., no way to modify a subscription beyond unsubscribe).

Resources