Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Usaspending

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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

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"). Matched as a substring of the registered legal name; a known brand name that matches nothing is retried under its legal name (`recipient_resolution` says so, and `recipient_name_searched` is what was actually queried).

Output 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.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / recipient_name / description
      Previous value: -"Recipient/contractor name to search for (e.g., \"Lockheed Martin\")"New value: +"Recipient/contractor name to search for (e.g., \"Lockheed Martin\"). Matched as a substring of the registered legal name; a known brand name that matches nothing is retried under its legal name (`recipient_resolution` says so, and `recipient_name_searched` is what was actually queried)."
  2. 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"
+]
  3. 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"
+}
  4. 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"
+  }
+]
  5. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world. Beyond that, the description adds genuine behavioral detail: dates are optional and default to the last 12 months, and the response always reports the window used, which matters for interpreting results.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the user question the tool answers, then the core action and default-date behavior. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and safety annotations already present, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: default date window and window reporting. The one omission is sibling differentiation, which prevents a 5.

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% and the schema itself is rich, including the recipient_name legal-name retry behavior and limit range. The description contributes only the date-default rule (last 12 months), which the schema does not state, so it adds marginal value over the structured fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource (retrieve a contractor's federal contract awards) and frames it with the exact question it answers. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names how it differs from close siblings like usa_award_search or usa_incumbent_profile.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The opening question ('what federal contracts did [company] win recently?') implies the use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over usa_award_search or usa_incumbent_profile, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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
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