Skip to main content
Glama

Gao Red Book

gao_red_book
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find the chapter of GAO's Principles of Federal Appropriations Law — the Red Book — that governs a federal appropriations, fiscal-law or government-funding question, described in plain words. Answers questions about what an appropriation may lawfully be spent on (the purpose statute and the necessary expense rule), how long it stays available (the bona fide needs rule, expired and cancelled accounts, no-year and multi-year money), how much may be obligated (the Antideficiency Act, augmentation, miscellaneous receipts, apportionment), recording valid obligations, continuing resolutions and funding lapses, accountable-officer liability and relief, grants and cooperative agreements, guaranteed and insured loans, acquisition, real property, and claims for and against the government. Returns the ranked chapters together with the full table of contents, each row naming which EDITION it comes from: GAO publishes the Red Book chapter by chapter, so the current treatise is a mix of Fourth and Third Edition chapters and this reads that composition live from GAO on every call. Every row carries the chapter PDF, its source_last_modified and age_days. This is official interpretation by the agency that decides federal appropriations law, not statute — pair it with uscode or cfr text for the underlying provision.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoThe fiscal-law topic or question in plain words, e.g. "can we pay for food at a conference", "bona fide needs rule", "Antideficiency Act violation", "obligating funds under a continuing resolution".
chapterNoReturn one specific Red Book chapter number (1-15) instead of ranking by topic.
include_scope_textNoFetch GAO's own scope summary for the Fourth Edition chapters from their product pages (3 extra parallel requests). Default true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark read-only/idempotent; description adds that it reads the chapter composition live from GAO on every call, returns ranked chapters with edition labels, PDFs, source_last_modified and age_days, and is official interpretation rather than statute. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with purpose; the topical list is long but earns its place given the breadth of appropriations law. Slightly long but not padded.

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?

No output schema, so description carries the burden of explaining returns; it does so (ranked chapters, TOC, edition, PDF, timestamps). It also explains the live mixed-edition behavior and the interpretive vs statutory nature, making it complete 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. Description reinforces the topic parameter's plain-words nature but adds no parameter-level details 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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('chapter of GAO's Principles of Federal Appropriations Law'), with a detailed topic scope. The phrase 'official interpretation... not statute' helps distinguish it from statute/cfr tools and the sibling gao_comptroller_decisions.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: appropriations, fiscal-law, or government-funding questions described in plain words. It also tells the agent to pair with uscode/cfr for underlying statute, but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusion cases.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.