Skip to main content
Glama

Govcon Intel

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewAdmin

Govcon Contractor Profile

govcon_contractor_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

Vet a government contractor's registration, federal awards, and spending history. Returns certifications, past performance, award amounts, and contract count. Use when assessing vendor credibility or experience.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_apiKeyNoOptional — the award and spending sections need no key. A free SAM.gov key (https://sam.gov/content/entity-information) unlocks the entity-registration section only; without one that section reports auth_required and the rest of the profile still answers.
company_nameYesCompany name (e.g., "Lockheed Martin", "Palantir")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyYesCompany name queried
analysisYesAnalysis type identifier
federal_awardsYesUSAspending award history results
sam_registrationYesSAM.gov entity registration data
sbir_sttr_awardsYesSBIR/STTR award history results
recipient_profileYesUSAspending recipient profile data

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / _apiKey / description
      Previous value: -"SAM.gov API key (optional)"New value: +"Optional — the award and spending sections need no key. A free SAM.gov key (https://sam.gov/content/entity-information) unlocks the entity-registration section only; without one that section reports auth_required and the rest of the profile still answers."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "analysis": {
+      "description": "Analysis type identifier",
+      "enum": [
+        "contractor_profile"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "company": {
+      "description": "Company name queried",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "federal_awards": {
+      "description": "USAspending award history results",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "recipient_profile": {
+      "description": "USAspending recipient profile data",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "sam_registration": {
+      "description": "SAM.gov entity registration data",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "sbir_sttr_awards": {
+      "description": "SBIR/STTR award history results",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "analysis",
+    "company",
+    "sam_registration",
+    "federal_awards",
+    "sbir_sttr_awards",
+    "recipient_profile"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "_apiKey": "your-govcon-intel-api-key",
+    "company_name": "Lockheed Martin"
+  },
+  {
+    "company_name": "Palantir Technologies"
+  }
+]
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds return content detail, but no behavioral nuance beyond that (e.g., data quality, latency, or how auth failures are represented). It does not contradict annotations, so a mid-level score is appropriate.

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 sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose, the second lists return items and a usage trigger. Every word earns its place, and the key action 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?

The description covers purpose, return items, and a use case. Since an output schema exists, explaining return values is not necessary. The only nuance missing is how the optional _apiKey affects behavior, but that is fully documented in the parameter schema. Overall, the context is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already documents company_name and _apiKey in detail. The tool description adds no further meaning about the parameters. Baseline 3 is correct since the description does not compensate beyond schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Vet') and resource ('government contractor's registration, federal awards, and spending history'), and enumerates the return value types (certifications, past performance, award amounts, contract count). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like govcon_agency_landscape or govcon_opportunity_scan, which target different aspects of government contracting.

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 usage context: 'Use when assessing vendor credibility or experience.' This tells the agent when to select this tool, but it does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or name alternative tools. That is a minor gap, but the contextual cue is strong enough for easy routing.

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

All Govcon Intel 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