Sbir

Sbir Search Solicitations

sbir_search_solicitations

Read-onlyIdempotent

"Which SBIR or STTR solicitations are open at [agency]?" / "current SBIR topics" / "open DoD SBIR solicitations" / "SBIR proposal deadlines" — active SBIR/STTR funding opportunities and topic solicitations from the federal SBIR program, by keyword or agency (e.g., "DOD", "DARPA", "NSF", "NASA", "DOE", "HHS"). Returns topic descriptions, sponsoring agency/branch, Phase, and open/close dates. This is the tool for open federal small-business R&D solicitations and topics; for who already WON SBIR money use sbir_search_awards.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Number of results to return (default 20)
`agency`	No	Filter by agency: DOW (Department of War, formerly DOD — "DOD" is accepted and translated), HHS, NASA, NSF, DOE, USDA, EPA, DOC, ED, DOT, DHS.
`keyword`	No	Search term to match against solicitation topics and descriptions
`open_only`	No	Only return currently open solicitations (default true)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes	Number of solicitations returned
`keyword`	Yes	Search keyword used
`open_only`	Yes	Whether only open solicitations were returned
`solicitations`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedAug 1, 2026
- changedInput schema / required
```
Previous value: -[
-  "keyword"
-]New value: +[]
```

Changed1 schema field changedJul 31, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / agency / description

Previous value: -"Filter by agency (e.g., \"DOD\", \"HHS\", \"NASA\", \"NSF\", \"DOE\", \"USDA\")"New value: +"Filter by agency: DOW (Department of War, formerly DOD — \"DOD\" is accepted and translated), HHS, NASA, NSF, DOE, USDA, EPA, DOC, ED, DOT, DHS."

Changed1 schema field changedMay 13, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of solicitations returned",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "keyword": {
+      "description": "Search keyword used",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "open_only": {
+      "description": "Whether only open solicitations were returned",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "solicitations": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "agency": {
+            "description": "Sponsoring agency",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "branch": {
+            "description": "Agency branch",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "close_date": {
+            "description": "Closing date",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "description": {
+            "description": "Description of the solicitation",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "open_date": {
+            "description": "Opening date",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "phase": {
+            "description": "Funding phase",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "program": {
+            "description": "Program name",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "solicitation_id": {
+            "description": "Unique solicitation identifier",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "topic_number": {
+            "description": "Topic number identifier",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "topic_title": {
+            "description": "Title of the solicitation topic",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "url": {
+            "description": "Link to solicitation details",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "topic_title",
+          "agency"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "keyword",
+    "open_only",
+    "count",
+    "solicitations"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 6, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "agency": "NSF",
+    "keyword": "artificial intelligence",
+    "open_only": true
+  },
+  {
+    "keyword": "biotechnology",
+    "limit": 10
+  }
+]

First observedApr 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (topic descriptions, agency, Phase, dates) and clarifies that it covers open opportunities, going beyond the annotation-only safety profile without contradicting it.

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?

The description is slightly verbose with the example queries, but they serve as useful intent-matching signals. It is front-loaded and each section has a purpose; a modest trim could improve conciseness without losing value.

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 search tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description fully covers the tool's scope, return fields, filtering dimensions, and even sibling differentiation. There are no critical gaps in context for an agent to select and invoke it 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 the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a bit of extra flavor by naming example agencies like DARPA and mentioning keyword/agency usage, but it doesn't meaningfully extend the schema's parameter definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource+scope: searches active SBIR/STTR solicitations by keyword or agency, and clearly lists returned fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the award-search sibling tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear usage context with natural language examples ('Which SBIR or STTR solicitations are open at [agency]?') and explicitly states when to use this tool versus sbir_search_awards for won funding. This direct alternative guidance is exactly what's needed.

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

All Sbir tools Inspect

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.