Skip to main content
Glama

Usaspending

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Usa Recipient Profile

usa_recipient_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

Answer "what federal contracts did [company] win recently?" and get a contractor's federal contract awards. Dates are optional and default to the last 12 months; the response always states the window used.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of results (1-100, default 10)
end_dateNoEnd date in YYYY-MM-DD format
start_dateNoStart date in YYYY-MM-DD format
recipient_nameYesRecipient/contractor name to search for (e.g., "Lockheed Martin")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitYesNumber of results returned
awardsYesAll contract awards for this recipient
total_resultsYesTotal number of awards for this recipient
recipient_nameYesName of the contractor/recipient

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "end_date": "2024-12-31",
-    "recipient_name": "Lockheed Martin",
-    "start_date": "2023-01-01"
-  },
-  {
-    "end_date": "2024-12-31",
-    "limit": 100,
-    "recipient_name": "Amazon Web Services",
-    "start_date": "2022-01-01"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "limit": 10,
+    "recipient_name": "Lockheed Martin"
+  },
+  {
+    "end_date": "2024-12-31",
+    "limit": 100,
+    "recipient_name": "Amazon Web Services",
+    "start_date": "2022-01-01"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "recipient_name",
-  "start_date",
-  "end_date"
-]New value: +[
+  "recipient_name"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "awards": {
+      "description": "All contract awards for this recipient",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "award_amount": {
+            "description": "Total award amount in dollars",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "award_id": {
+            "description": "Unique award identifier",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "awarding_agency": {
+            "description": "Name of the awarding agency",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "awarding_sub_agency": {
+            "description": "Sub-agency that awarded the contract",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "contract_type": {
+            "description": "Type of contract award",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "description": {
+            "description": "Award description",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "end_date": {
+            "description": "Award end date",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "naics_code": {
+            "description": "NAICS industry code",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "recipient_name": {
+            "description": "Name of the contractor/recipient",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "start_date": {
+            "description": "Award start date",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "total_outlays": {
+            "description": "Total amount paid out",
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "award_id",
+          "recipient_name",
+          "award_amount",
+          "total_outlays",
+          "start_date",
+          "end_date",
+          "awarding_agency",
+          "awarding_sub_agency",
+          "description",
+          "naics_code",
+          "contract_type"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "limit": {
+      "description": "Number of results returned",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "recipient_name": {
+      "description": "Name of the contractor/recipient",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "total_results": {
+      "description": "Total number of awards for this recipient",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "recipient_name",
+    "total_results",
+    "limit",
+    "awards"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "end_date": "2024-12-31",
+    "recipient_name": "Lockheed Martin",
+    "start_date": "2023-01-01"
+  },
+  {
+    "end_date": "2024-12-31",
+    "limit": 100,
+    "recipient_name": "Amazon Web Services",
+    "start_date": "2022-01-01"
+  }
+]
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that dates default to the last 12 months and that the response always states the window used. This adds useful behavioral context not captured by annotations.

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—two sentences—and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It avoids redundancy and every sentence adds meaningful information.

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 read-only retrieval tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the core purpose and the key behavior (date window), while the structured schemas cover parameters and return values.

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 already documented. The description adds semantic value by explaining that start_date/end_date are optional and default to the last 12 months, which is not in the schema. This improves understanding of how the date parameters behave.

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 tool's function: answering 'what federal contracts did [company] win recently?' and retrieving a contractor's federal contract awards. It uses a specific verb ('Answer/get') and resource ('contract awards') and differentiates from siblings like usa_award_search by focusing on the recipient profile.

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 clear usage context by giving an example query and noting that dates are optional with a default window. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context implies when to use it—when you need a contractor's awards.

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

All Usaspending 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.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are essentially the same router with different output modes, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. There is also meaningful overlap between entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim, and the USAspending profile/search tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lower_snake_case with useful prefixes like ask_, polymarket_, and usa_, which helps grouping. However, the underlying convention is mixed: some are verb+object, some are noun phrases, and some are bare verbs, so there is no uniform verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is well beyond the heavy range, and most of them are unrelated to USAspending: Polymarket betting, npm dependency checks, AI visibility, memory storage, and meta-tools. The actual USAspending-specific surface is only about seven tools, making the server feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The federal-contract cluster covers award search, recipient/incumbent profiles, expiring awards, and spending by agency/category/trend, which handles the main contracting questions. Missing award-detail retrieval, grants/assistance coverage, and open-solicitation lookup, which usa_expiring_awards explicitly punts to external samgov/govcon tools.

Resources