AgentGov
Server Details
Search 35,000+ active US federal contracts and 1,000+ grants from SAM.gov and Grants.gov. Tools: search_contracts, search_grants, search_awards.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct category: historical awards, active contracts, and grants. No overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent 'search_noun' pattern with snake_case, making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
Three tools cover the main areas of US federal opportunities: awards, contracts, and grants. This is well-scoped for a specialized search server.
The set covers the primary search needs for federal opportunities, but lacks tools for retrieving details of a specific item or filtering results. Minor gap.
Available Tools
3 toolssearch_awardsAInspect
Search historical US federal contract award data for price intelligence. Find out what similar contracts paid and who won them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results (max 25) | |
| naics | No | 6-digit NAICS code | |
| agency | No | Filter by agency name | |
| keyword | No | Search keyword |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the purpose and does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a search tool, read-only behavior is implied but not stated.
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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a clarifying sentence about utility. No redundant or unnecessary 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?
Given the tool has no output schema and moderate complexity (4 optional parameters), the description is largely adequate. It explains the data type (contract awards) and the kind of information returned (prices, winners). However, it could be more complete by noting the default limit (10) or max results (25) and describing the search scope (e.g., no date range mentioned).
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 description coverage is 100% because all parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what is already provided in the input schema. Thus, it meets the 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 clearly states the verb 'search', the resource 'historical US federal contract award data', and the specific purpose 'for price intelligence'. It also mentions outcomes ('what similar contracts paid and who won them'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_contracts and search_grants by focusing on award data and pricing.
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 implies usage for price intelligence on contract awards but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., search_contracts for general contracts or search_grants for grants). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_contractsAInspect
Search active US federal contract opportunities from SAM.gov. Useful for finding RFPs, solicitations, and government procurement opportunities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results (max 25) | |
| naics | No | 6-digit NAICS code for the industry | |
| agency | No | Filter by agency name | |
| keyword | No | Search keyword or phrase | |
| set_aside | No | Set-aside type: SBA, 8A, SDVOSBC, WOSB, HZC |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'search,' implying read-only, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, auth needs, or safety implications. Minimal information beyond the obvious.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, immediate clarity. Purpose is front-loaded with 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?
For a search tool with clear schema and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it searches, where from, and typical use. It could mention result format or pagination, but is adequate for this type of 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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.
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 clearly states it searches 'active US federal contract opportunities from SAM.gov', specifying the verb, resource, and source. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on 'contracts' vs. awards and grants.
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 says it is 'useful for finding RFPs, solicitations, and government procurement opportunities', which implies appropriate use cases. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context of 'contracts' provides implicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_grantsBInspect
Search active US federal grant opportunities from Grants.gov. Covers all federal agencies and funding types.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results (max 25) | |
| keyword | No | Search keyword or phrase | |
| category | No | Funding category: ST=Science, HL=Health, ED=Education, AG=Agriculture | |
| max_award | No | Maximum award amount in USD | |
| min_award | No | Minimum award amount in USD | |
| eligibility | No | Eligible applicant type: small_business, nonprofit, state, tribal, individual, university |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It states 'Search...' implying read-only, but fails to disclose any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or result behavior such as pagination or sorting.
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?
Description is two sentences, no extraneous words. Efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope.
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 tool has 6 optional parameters with no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain result format, how filters interact, or provide any usage examples for a moderately complex search 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it only reiterates the general scope.
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 specifies verb 'search', resource 'grants', scope 'active US federal', and source 'Grants.gov'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools 'search_awards' and 'search_contracts' which handle different funding types.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Description implies it covers all federal agencies but does not mention exclusions or provide context for when to choose this over siblings like 'search_contracts'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!