Stipple - Government Tenders and Grants

Match tenders to a company

match_tenders

Read-only

Rank open tenders against what a company actually does. Free, inside the weekly cap.

USE THIS WHEN someone asks which opportunities suit a specific business: "what could we
bid for", "is there anything for a civil contractor in Victoria", "find work for
acme.com.au". Give `company_url` — a plain domain is fine, we resolve it — and we read
their site, build a capability profile, and score the shortlist against it.

`example` runs a built-in profile (civil, it, facilities) with no site read, for
demonstrating the shape of the answer.

Returns `{profile, matched, shown, withheld, withheld_reason, matches[], degraded,
score_means, coverage}`. Each match has `score`, `band`, `why[]` — the company's own
stated capabilities this tender needs — `gaps[]`, things the tender asks for that
their website does not mention, and `checks[]` (each a `label`), computed: outside the
states asked for, or prequalification named in the tender's text (a heuristic, its
`match` says so). `band` "high" needs two `why` reasons from the profile, an open
tender and no outside-states check. A tender listed by two sources is one match, with the
other copy under `also_listed[]`, its `match` saying the pairing is a heuristic. An
anonymous call shows the strongest few and says how many were withheld; relay
`withheld_reason` as it is.

TELL THE USER WHAT THE SCORE IS: relative fit within these results, against what their
website says. NOT a probability of winning. And `gaps` is what to check before bidding,
not a list of everything the tender requires — that is in the tender documents.

When `degraded` is true, scoring was unavailable and the order is keyword relevance
only, with no `why`/`gaps`. Say so rather than presenting it as a judged ranking.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`example`	No
`company_url`	No
`jurisdiction`	No
`closing_before`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedAug 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description goes well beyond that: 'Free, inside the weekly cap' (a rate/quota constraint), the anonymous-call withholding behavior, the `degraded` fallback semantics, and the exact rule for a 'high' band. It also discloses that `checks` and duplicate pairing are heuristics rather than hard facts, which is exactly the kind of caveat annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then broken into capped blocks ('USE THIS WHEN', 'TELL THE USER WHAT THE SCORE IS') that scan well. The paragraph enumerating every returned field is heavier than needed given an output schema exists, which costs it the top mark.

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?

For a no-required-param ranking tool with an output schema, this covers the risky parts an agent must relay: the withheld/anonymous path, the degraded ordering, and the fact that `score` is relative fit not win probability. The only real hole is the unmentioned `jurisdiction` and `closing_before` filters.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full burden, and it explains two of four parameters well: `company_url` ('a plain domain is fine, we resolve it') and `example` (built-in civil/it/facilities profile, no site read). `jurisdiction` and `closing_before` are named nowhere in the description, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Rank open tenders against what a company actually does,' and the two-word scope (per-company matching) inherently separates it from a plain lister like find_tenders. It never names a sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'USE THIS WHEN' block gives concrete trigger phrasings ('what could we bid for', 'work for acme.com.au') and explains the `example` mode versus a real site read, which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when NOT to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All Stipple - Government Tenders and Grants tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.