Skip to main content
Glama

Us Gov Contracts

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Gov Spending Search

gov_spending_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search US STATE government spending / vendor payments — the 'checkbook' data of what an agency actually PAID a vendor (distinct from an awarded contract's value). Keyless. Filter by vendor, awarding agency, spending category keyword, and minimum amount. Pass a jurisdiction key (see gov_contracts_jurisdictions) to target one state, or omit it to search all covered states. Returns vendor, agency, amount, category, and fiscal year. Use gov_contracts_search for awarded contracts; use this for actual payments/expenditures.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax records per state (default 20, max 100).
agencyNoPaying agency/department to match (case-insensitive substring).
vendorNoVendor/payee name to match (case-insensitive substring).
keywordNoMatch against the spending category/description (case-insensitive substring).
min_amountNoOnly payments of at least this many dollars.
jurisdictionNoState key to target (e.g. "nj", "vt", "or", "md", "mo"). Omit to search all covered states.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "jurisdiction": "nj",
+    "min_amount": 100000,
+    "vendor": "Acme Corp"
+  },
+  {
+    "agency": "health",
+    "keyword": "IT services",
+    "limit": 30
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by clarifying that results are actual expenditures (not award values), stating the return fields (vendor, agency, amount, category, fiscal year), and noting 'Keyless' access. It does not repeat or contradict annotations, but it doesn't go beyond what annotations cover in terms of operational edge cases (e.g., pagination or rate limits), hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 a single dense paragraph of about 70 words. Every sentence earns its place: the opening defines the core purpose; the second clarifies the distinction from contracts; the third lists filters; the fourth explains jurisdiction; the fifth lists returns; the sixth names the alternative. No fluff, no repetition.

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?

With no output schema and six parameters, the description compensates by covering the tool's purpose, scope, filtering options, jurisdiction behavior, return fields, and the relationship to sibling tools. The annotations handle the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so nothing critical is missing for a search/list tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining that 'keyword' matches the spending category/description, that 'min_amount' filters by dollars of actual payments, and that 'jurisdiction' is optional and omittable for a nationwide search. It also clarifies that 'agency' refers to the paying agency, which aligns with the schema's 'Paying agency/department.'

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 pair ('Search US STATE government spending / vendor payments') and immediately distinguishes from the sibling tool gov_contracts_search by contrasting 'awarded contracts' with 'actual payments.' The scope (state-level checkbook data), filterable dimensions, and return fields are all clearly stated.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative for awarded contracts ('Use gov_contracts_search for awarded contracts; use this for actual payments/expenditures'), tells when to pass a jurisdiction key (or omit it for all states), references gov_contracts_jurisdictions for valid keys, and notes 'Keyless' (no auth needed). This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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

All Us Gov Contracts toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources