Skip to main content
Glama

Ukri Gtr

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewAdmin

Gtr Search Projects

gtr_search_projects
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search UK research grants awarded by UKRI — the seven research councils (EPSRC, MRC, BBSRC, NERC, ESRC, AHRC, STFC) plus Innovate UK — by free text over titles and abstracts. Returns each grant reference, project title, funding council, grant category, lead department, award status and funding period, for questions like which UK grants fund a given topic, how many awards a council made in an area, or what a UK research group was funded to do. Narrow by funder name and by Active or Closed status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page of upstream results. Default 1.
limitNoResults to return, 1-100. Default 10.
queryYesFree text, e.g. "quantum computing", "antimicrobial resistance", "offshore wind".
funderNoFunding body to restrict to, matched exactly against leadFunder: EPSRC, MRC, BBSRC, NERC, ESRC, AHRC, STFC, "Innovate UK", "Horizon Europe Guarantee", "UKRI FLF", "Newton Fund".
statusNoAward status.
search_fieldNoWhich field the query text is matched against. Default "all".

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: -[
-  {
-    "funder": "EPSRC",
-    "limit": 3,
-    "query": "quantum computing",
-    "status": "Active"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "funder": "EPSRC",
+    "limit": 10,
+    "query": "quantum computing",
+    "status": "Active"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it returns specific fields (output schema), which is useful but not a behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences: first states action and output, second adds usage context. Every sentence is informative, no wasted words, and front-loaded with key 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 with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, typical use cases, and return fields. It lacks details on pagination or edge cases, but for a search tool with good annotations, this is sufficient.

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 is 3. The description adds usage context by mentioning free-text search over titles/abstracts and narrowing by funder/status, but does not elaborate on page, limit, or search_field beyond their 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 searches UK research grants by free text over titles and abstracts, and lists the specific fields returned (grant reference, project title, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gtr_get_project (single project) and gtr_search_publications by focusing on grants and free-text search.

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 explicit use cases ('for questions like which UK grants fund a given topic...') and mentions narrowing by funder and status. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies specialization.

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