Skip to main content
Glama

FundingLandscape

by io.github.tettertotter

Save Search

save_search

Save a search query for email alerts. When new opportunities match, the user receives daily or weekly email notifications. The FREE tier includes 1 saved search with weekly email alerts, so any user can set one up without a paid plan.

RECOMMENDED WORKFLOW:

  1. Call list_saved_searches first to check for existing/similar searches

  2. If a similar search exists, offer to update_saved_search instead

  3. Search with search_grantsplus or search_procurement first to validate the query returns good results

  4. Save with appropriate filters based on what the user described

FILTER TIPS:

  • Use itemTypes ["grant"] for grants/fellowships or ["procurement"] for contracts/RFPs

  • Use sourceTypes ["federal"] for federal opportunities only

  • Use geography ["CA"] for California-specific (includes national opportunities)

  • For SAM.gov-specific filters (NAICS, set-asides), use sourceContext

  • Keep filters broad for notifications - better to get a few extra than miss one

PLAN LIMITS: Free: 1 saved search, weekly email alerts. Plus ($29/mo): 10 saved searches, daily or weekly alerts. Pro ($79/mo): 25 saved searches, daily or weekly alerts.

Does not count toward your monthly searches.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoFriendly name for this search (e.g. "DOE Clean Energy Grants")
queryYesSearch query to save (e.g. "clean energy research grants", "IT services federal contracts")
cadenceNoAlert frequency. daily requires a paid plan (Plus or Pro); free includes weekly. never = save the search without email alerts. Default: weekly
filtersNoFilters to narrow alert results. All optional. When omitted, all opportunity types are included.
hidelowNoHide low-confidence results in alerts. Default: false

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses plan limits, free tier constraints, that saving does not count toward monthly searches, and recommends broad filters to avoid missing results. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent useful context for user expectations, though it does not detail alert delivery mechanics or confirmation behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (main, workflow, filter tips, plan limits), but there is redundancy between the opening paragraph's free tier mention and the later PLAN LIMITS section. Minor trimming would make it more concise, though the organization makes it easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, nested objects, plan-dependent cadence), the description is thorough: it covers purpose, workflow, filter semantics, plan limits, and quota impact. There is no output schema, but for a save operation the description provides sufficient context for an agent to execute correctly and set user expectations.

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%, but the description adds valuable FILTER TIPS with specific guidance for itemTypes ('grant' includes fellowships/SBIR), sourceTypes, geography, sourceContext, and the recommendation to keep filters broad. This enriches the parameter meanings beyond the already-detailed 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 'Save a search query for email alerts' and explains the resulting behavior (daily/weekly notifications). It distinguishes from siblings like update_saved_search, list_saved_searches, and delete_saved_search by focusing on the creation of a saved search with alert cadence.

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?

The RECOMMENDED WORKFLOW explicitly instructs when to use this tool, when to use alternatives (list_saved_searches first, offer update_saved_search if similar exists), and how to validate with search_grantsplus/search_procurement first. It also provides plan limit guidance, clarifying which cadences are available on each tier.

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

All FundingLandscape 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes. Some overlap exists (e.g., search_grantsplus and search_foundations both return foundations, but descriptions clarify the distinction). Also batch_ variants are comprehensive versions of the standard searches. Overall, agents can differentiate well.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names predominantly follow verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., search_grantsplus, get_opportunity, list_saved_searches). Minor deviation with 'whats_new' (no underscore) and 'check_connection' (different verb form). Otherwise consistent.

Tool Count4/5

26 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but still reasonable for a comprehensive funding landscape server covering grants, procurement, foundations, saved searches, account management, and utilities. Each tool serves a clear purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core search, detail retrieval, saved search management, account information, and feedback. Missing are profile management or direct payment modification tools (only links provided). Minor gaps but overall complete for the domain.

Resources