Skip to main content
Glama

Nihr

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewAdmin

Nihr Awards By Organisation

nihr_awards_by_organisation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Total up UK NIHR health research funding held by a university, NHS trust or company. Give any part of the institution name and get back the number of NIHR awards, the summed award value in GBP, the distinct organisation-name variants that matched, a breakdown by programme, and the individual awards with their values and dates. Answers "how much NIHR money does Imperial College hold", "how many NIHR awards has Guy's and St Thomas won", and institutional league-table comparisons.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax individual awards to list, 1-100 (default 20). The totals always cover every match, not just the listed page.
offsetNoPagination offset for the listed awards (default 0).
min_amountNoOnly count and list awards worth at least this many GBP.
start_fromNoOnly awards starting on or after this date, YYYY-MM-DD — useful for "funding won since 2020".
organisationYesInstitution name or fragment, matched as a case-insensitive substring of contracted_organisation, e.g. "Imperial", "University of Leeds", "Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust".
project_statusNoRestrict to one status: Active, Complete, Contracted or Discontinued.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "limit": 5,
-    "organisation": "Imperial"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "limit": 10,
+    "organisation": "Imperial College"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds that totals cover all matches regardless of pagination, explains substring matching, and lists returned data types. This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states core function, second lists outputs, third gives example queries. No fluff, front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Given 6 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, the description adequately covers key aspects: substring matching, pagination behavior, aggregate totals, time filtering (via start_from). It could more precisely detail output structure, but the provided examples and parameter descriptions fill gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a usage example (limit=10, organisation='Imperial College') and clarifies that the limit only affects listed awards, not totals. This provides extra practical context beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it totals up NIHR funding for an institution, listing specific return values (number of awards, sum, breakdown, individual awards) and giving concrete example queries. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nihr_awards_by_programme and nihr_get_award by focusing on organisational aggregation.

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 description implies use for organisational funding queries and provides example questions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nihr_search_awards or nihr_awards_by_programme. The sibling tool list provides context but the description lacks explicit guidance.

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

All Nihr 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