Gov Bids Jurisdictions
gov_bids_jurisdictionsList the US city & county procurement portals covered by open_bids_search, with each jurisdiction key, name, and current open-bid count.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
gov_bids_jurisdictionsList the US city & county procurement portals covered by open_bids_search, with each jurisdiction key, name, and current open-bid count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns jurisdiction key, name, and current open-bid count, providing useful output structure beyond 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action and output, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers the needed context: what it lists and the fields returned. Complete for its intended use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage. With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter details, aligning with the baseline score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists US city & county procurement portals covered by open_bids_search, providing the jurisdiction key, name, and open-bid count. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like open_bids_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool lists jurisdictions covered by open_bids_search, implying its use for retrieving that list. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given, but the purpose is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.