Skip to main content
Glama

Ukri Gtr

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewAdmin

Gtr Organisation Projects

gtr_organisation_projects
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the UKRI grants held by one institution, given its GtR organisation id or its name. Returns that institution's grant references, project titles, funding councils, departments, statuses and funding periods together with a total award count — the way to see a university's or company's UK research funding portfolio. Narrow by funding council and by Active or Closed status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page. Default 1.
limitNoResults to return, 1-100. Default 10.
funderNoFunding body to restrict to, matched against leadFunder.
statusNoAward status.
organisationYesGtR organisation GUID (e.g. "4FC4CBFD-9E7C-4518-BB16-852553236FE1") or an institution name to resolve first.

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": 3,
-    "organisation": "4FC4CBFD-9E7C-4518-BB16-852553236FE1"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "funder": "EPSRC",
+    "limit": 10,
+    "organisation": "4FC4CBFD-9E7C-4518-BB16-852553236FE1",
+    "status": "Active"
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 10,
+    "organisation": "rolls-royce"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the return fields: grant references, project titles, funding councils, departments, statuses, funding periods, and total award count. This goes 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?

The description is concise, with two sentences. The first sentence states purpose and input, the second details returns and filters. No extraneous 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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the return fields and filtering. It lacks mention of pagination (page/limit) but the schema covers that. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds meaning by explaining that the 'organisation' parameter accepts a GUID or name, and clarifies the use of 'funder' and 'status' for narrowing results. This provides context 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'UKRI grants held by one institution', and the input method (GtR organisation id or name). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like gtr_search_projects, which is for searching all projects, not by institution.

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 explains when to use the tool: to see an institution's research funding portfolio. It mentions filtering by funding council and status, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, such as for single project retrieval.

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

All Ukri Gtr 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