Federal Contracts & Grants
Server Details
US federal contracts, grants, and spending 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 3.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool clearly targets a distinct data source: historical awards, active contracts, active grants, and spending data. There is no overlap in purpose; descriptions clarify the differences even where data sources might seem related.
All tool names follow a consistent 'search_<noun>' pattern with the same verb prefix and a clear noun indicating the data type. No naming variations or irregularities.
Four tools is exactly right for a focused search-oriented server covering the main federal funding data types: awards, contracts, grants, and spending. The count is neither too few nor too many.
The tool set fully covers the search domain for federal contracts and grants: historical awards, active opportunities (both contracts and grants), and spending data. No obvious gaps exist within the server's stated purpose.
Available Tools
4 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It implies a read operation and provides a use case, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The schema covers the limit, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose.
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 efficient sentences that immediately state the purpose and value. No redundant or extraneous content; every word earns its place.
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?
The description explains the tool's purpose and implies result content (price, winner) but lacks detail on output format, parameter combinations, or advanced features. Given no output schema, some completeness is achieved but could be more comprehensive.
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. The description does not elaborate on parameter meanings or usage beyond what the schema provides, offering no additional semantic value.
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 tool searches historical US federal contract award data for price intelligence, specifically identifying similar contract payments and winners. It distinguishes itself from siblings (search_contracts, search_grants, search_spending) by focusing on awards.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to search awards vs contracts). The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios.
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention data freshness, pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The agent lacks critical context for safe invocation.
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 concise with two front-loaded sentences that immediately convey the source (SAM.gov) and purpose (searching opportunities). Every word contributes value.
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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the domain (federal contracts) and use case (RFPs, solicitations). However, it omits expected return fields or pagination details, but given the context, it is largely sufficient.
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 provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage). The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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, including RFPs, solicitations, and procurement opportunities. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_awards (for post-award data) and search_grants (for 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 indicates it is useful for finding specific types of opportunities, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_awards or search_grants. No exclusion criteria or comparative 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_grantsCInspect
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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions covering all federal agencies and funding types, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any required authentication, rate limits, or how search results are structured. Minimal behavioral context beyond the stated 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and wastes no words. Every sentence is necessary.
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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output format, pagination behavior, or how to handle multiple parameters. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool confidently beyond basic keyword search.
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%, with each of the 6 parameters having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 the tool searches active US federal grant opportunities from Grants.gov, covering all federal agencies and funding types. The verb 'Search' and resource 'grant opportunities' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'search_awards' which might overlap.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_awards, search_contracts, or search_spending. The description implies a niche for grants but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_spendingAInspect
Search federal award spending data from USAspending.gov. Find awards by keyword, look up a company total federal contracts, or see agency spending breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | awards (search awards), recipient (company history), or agency | awards |
| limit | No | Number of results (max 25) | |
| agency | No | Filter by agency name | |
| keyword | No | Search keyword (e.g. "artificial intelligence", "cloud services") | |
| recipient | No | Company name (e.g. "Microsoft", "Lockheed Martin") | |
| min_amount | No | Minimum award amount in USD |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. However, it only states what it does, not behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements.
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, efficiently covers main purpose and key use cases, front-loaded, no fluff.
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?
Covers main use cases and parameter context, but lacks explanation of output format or behavioral details. With no output schema, more guidance on return values would improve completeness.
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. The description adds high-level context (three use cases) but does not provide additional detail beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 searches federal award spending data from USAspending.gov and lists three specific use cases: keyword awards, company contracts, agency breakdown. Differentiates from siblings by covering all three 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?
Implied usage through the three modes, but no explicit when-to-use or comparison with sibling tools like search_awards, search_contracts, search_grants.
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!