US federal contract recompetes with the incumbent named, awards by company, agency spend.
Average 4.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a clear, distinct query axis: get_agency_spend looks at agency spending by vendor/industry, search_awards_by_company looks at a company's awards and agencies, and get_expiring_contracts identifies contracts expiring by NAICS. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All three tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: get_agency_spend, get_expiring_contracts, search_awards_by_company. The verbs 'get' and 'search' both indicate retrieval and fit the context.
Three tools sit within the ideal 3-15 range and each covers a distinct dimension (agency, company, and time-based pipeline). The count is well-scoped for a focused federal contract intelligence server.
The tool surface lacks direct contract lookup by ID or keyword, and cannot filter awards by date besides the expiring-contracts window. The get_expiring_contracts tool is also not yet functional, making the set incomplete for full contract intelligence.
get_agency_spendGet agency contract spendAWhere one federal agency's contract dollars went in a fiscal year: its top vendors and its top NAICS industries, both ranked by obligated amount. Use it to answer who sells to an agency and what that agency buys. The agency argument must resolve to a single toptier agency — use the full name ("Department of Veterans Affairs") or the official abbreviation ("VA"); an ambiguous fragment matching several agencies returns no match rather than a guess. Fiscal years run 1 October to 30 September and are named for the ending calendar year, so FY2026 starts 2025-10-01; omit fiscalYear for the current one. Source: USAspending.gov prime contract awards (public domain, no login). Civilian agency awards are roughly 4 days fresh; Department of Defense awards are withheld about 90 days, so recent defense activity looks sparser than it is. Amounts are obligated dollars in USD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agency | Yes | Toptier agency name or abbreviation, e.g. "Department of Homeland Security" or "GSA". | |
| fiscalYear | No | US federal fiscal year, e.g. 2026. Defaults to the current fiscal year. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that ambiguous agency fragments return no match, defines fiscal year boundaries, notes data freshness for civilian vs DoD, and states amounts are in USD. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four focused sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then data context. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Though no output schema, the description specifies the return content (top vendors, top NAICS industries) and gives sufficient context on source, freshness, and units. Complete for a read-only, 2-param tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already covers both parameters; description adds the rule that agency must resolve to a single toptier agency and explains fiscal year default and naming conventions, providing extra clarity beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it returns top vendors and top NAICS industries by obligated amount for a federal agency, using specific verbs (who sells, what buys). Distinct from siblings (expiring contracts, awards by company).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use it to answer who sells to an agency and what that agency buys,' and provides constraints on agency naming and fiscal year. Does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_expiring_contractsGet expiring contractsAFederal contracts whose period of performance ends inside a chosen window for one NAICS industry — the recompete pipeline, useful for finding work about to be rebid and identifying the incumbent to displace. Rows come back soonest expiry first with the end date, days remaining, contract PIID and parent IDV, incumbent vendor name and UEI, contracting department, obligated dollars, total contract value including options, place of performance, and description. Two fields matter most to small contractors: setAside, the socioeconomic set-aside the work was competed under (SDVOSBC service-disabled veteran-owned, WOSB women-owned, 8AN 8(a) sole source, SBA total small business, HZC HUBZone), which is null when the work was competed full and open; and isSmallBusiness, the contracting officer's size determination for the incumbent — together they show whether a small firm is eligible to bid and whether the incumbent is a small business or a large one. Rows are served from nightly SAM.gov snapshots. Coverage is partial and rotating: the sync refreshes the stalest few of the 20 seeded industries each night, so only some are readable at any moment and the set grows over a few nights. The syncedAt field gives the timestamp of the sync that produced the rows, and an industry with no snapshot yet returns a short notice naming the codes that are currently synced, instead of data. Source: SAM.gov Contract Awards v1, public domain US Government data. Vendor street addresses are never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Days ahead to look for expiring periods of performance. Defaults to 180. | |
| naics | Yes | NAICS industry code, 2 to 6 digits, e.g. "541511" for custom computer programming. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses nightly SAM.gov snapshots, partial rotating sync coverage, handling for unsynced industries (returning notice), and that vendor street addresses are never returned. This provides rich behavioral context without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but front-loaded with its core purpose, then details return fields and sync behavior. Every sentence adds operational value, though it could be considered wordy. It earns its length due to the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating key return fields, explaining the significance of setAside and isSmallBusiness, and covering the partial sync edge case. This makes it complete for understanding results and limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents both parameters (naics with pattern and example, days with default). The description does not add additional meaning about the parameters themselves, focusing instead on output fields. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns Federal contracts expiring within a chosen window for a specific NAICS industry, with a distinct purpose as a 'recompete pipeline.' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agency_spend and search_awards_by_company without needing to name them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states it is 'useful for finding work about to be rebid and identifying the incumbent to displace,' giving a clear use context. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the use case is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_awards_by_companySearch federal awards by companyATop US federal prime contract awards won by a company, largest award amount first. Use it to size a contractor's federal business, see which agencies buy from it, or pull its biggest named contracts. Matching is full-text on the recipient name, so pass the company's common or legal name ("Booz Allen", "Lockheed Martin") rather than a ticker or internal abbreviation; a name that is too specific returns nothing. Returns up to 25 awards per page with award ID, recipient, awarding agency, amount, period of performance, NAICS code, and description; page through with the page argument while hasNext is true. Source: USAspending.gov prime contract awards (public domain, no login). Civilian agency awards are roughly 4 days fresh; Department of Defense awards are withheld about 90 days, so recent defense activity looks sparser than it is. Amounts are obligated dollars in USD.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page of 25 awards, sorted by amount descending. Defaults to 1. | |
| query | Yes | Company name to match against federal award recipients, e.g. "Booz Allen". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: full-text matching behavior, data freshness (civilian vs DoD 90-day withholding), source (USAspending.gov), and return fields including pagination via hasNext. It explains why recent defense data looks sparse, which is beyond annotation scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with purpose and flows logically through matching, output fields, and data caveats. Every sentence adds useful information; however, it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description comprehensively covers return fields, pagination, and data source nuances. The tool's complexity (paging, freshness, matching) is fully addressed, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters descriptively, but the description adds value: explains ordering (largest amount first), page size (25), and provides concrete examples ('Booz Allen', 'Lockheed Martin'), plus clarifies that over-specific queries return nothing. This is far beyond the schema's baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Top US federal prime contract awards won by a company, largest award amount first.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (get_agency_spend, get_expiring_contracts) by focusing on company-specific award lookup and explicitly states use cases like sizing a contractor's business.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides strong context: says when to use it ('size a contractor's federal business, see which agencies buy from it'), gives explicit matching guidance (use common/legal name, not ticker), and warns about overly specific names returning nothing. However, it does not directly name alternatives or describe when not to use this tool versus siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Predict federal contract recompetes: expiring contracts, likely competitors, win odds.
Federal contract intelligence: $7T+ awards, SAM.gov opps, pWin verdicts, recompetes, protests.
US federal contracting data: open solicitations, buying agencies, contractors, price history.
Track US federal contract changes: what changed, deltas, competitor award watch, award search.
