Govparse Government Data Gateway

va_vendors_search

Which verified veteran-owned businesses can I target or team with? Search SDVOSB / VOSB firms (from federal award records carrying the veteran-owned certification flag) by state, name, certification, NAICS, UEI, minimum dollars won FROM the VA, or most-recent award date (since). Returns the vendor, award footprint, VA-won total, and resolved entities-graph id — a seller target list AND a set-aside teaming signal. Public USAspending records; not a certification-status determination. [price: $0.05/row]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`uei`	No	Recipient Unique Entity Identifier (SAM UEI).
`name`	No	Vendor name fragment.
`limit`	No	Max rows (default 25, cap 100).
`naics`	No	NAICS code prefix(es), CSV — matches any of the vendor's award NAICS.
`since`	No	Most recent award on or after this date (YYYY-MM-DD).
`state`	No	Vendor state code(s), CSV.
`offset`	No	Rows to skip, for paging.
`min_va_award`	No	Minimum total $ this vendor has won FROM the VA.
`certification`	No	sdvosb \| vosb (CSV for both).

Schema Changelog

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

AddedJul 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions public data source and pricing, but lacks explicit disclosure on read-only nature, auth needs, or rate limits. Partial but not fully transparent.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose with a question, then details. It is concise with no wasted words. Pricing note is extra but useful; could be more structured but overall efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explicitly states return content and data source. It covers key aspects like certification values and limitations. Completeness is strong for a search tool with 9 parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about return data (vendor, award footprint, etc.) but does not add extra semantics beyond schema for individual parameters.

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 searches for verified veteran-owned businesses (SDVOSB/VOSB) from federal award records, listing specific resources and actions. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on veteran certification and VA awards.

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 description starts with a motivating question and lists search criteria, but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use instructions or mention alternative tools. Sibling context implies differentiation, but direct guidance is missing.

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

All Govparse Government Data Gateway tools Inspect

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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain and specific action (e.g., FDA approvals vs clearances vs recalls; firmstanding business360 dossier vs search vs screen). Even overlapping concepts like 'business360' vs 'business360_lookup' are distinguished by input (UUID vs name+state). No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern with domain prefix (e.g., fda_*, firmstanding_*, fmcsa_*, govcon_*). Action words (search, lookup, screen, feed, stats) follow predictable usage. The naming is uniform and easy to parse.

Tool Count4/5

38 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for a comprehensive government data gateway spanning multiple agencies and datasets. Each domain has a reasonable number of tools (e.g., FMCSA: 7, OFLC: 6). Could potentially be trimmed slightly, but overall well-scoped for the stated purpose.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the major government data sources comprehensively: FDA (approvals, clearances, recalls), FMCSA (carrier census, safety, insurance, etc.), FSIS, DOJ/OFLC, OSHA/EPA/DOL enforcement, SEC insider filings, clinical trials, VA facilities/opportunities/vendors, and federal contracting. No obvious gaps for the stated gateway purpose.

Resources

Need Help?