ukintel.uk — UK company, tender and grant intelligence

A real sample answer, rotating daily (free)

uk_preview

A genuine, freshly-computed sample so an agent can see the exact response shape before spending anything. Default: a real company verdict, rotating daily. Add ?wing=tenders for a real live-tender brief, or ?wing=grants for a real grant eligibility verdict - all rotating daily. Every response carries the same envelope: query, result, verdict, confidence, as_of, sources, attribution, notice, cost.

Free. Returns: The identical envelope returned by the paid endpoints: /v1/company/{number}/verdict by default, /v1/tenders/{ocid}/brief with ?wing=tenders, /v1/grants/{id}/eligibility with ?wing=grants.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wing`	No	Which product family to sample: company (default), tenders or grants.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedAug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is free, returns a rotating daily sample, and that the envelope structure (query, result, verdict, etc.) is identical to paid endpoints. This is appropriate for a non-destructive preview tool, though rate limits or authentication requirements are not mentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (~100 words) and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then details options, return envelope, and free status. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It explains the response envelope, how to select different wings, and the free/rotating nature. It does not cover error scenarios or limits, but for a preview tool these are not critical omissions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with one enum parameter 'wing' described. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the default value (company), gives concrete examples (?wing=tenders, ?wing=grants), and notes that all options rotate daily. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter usage.

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 this tool provides a genuine, freshly-computed sample response from one of three product families (company, tenders, grants) for free. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like uk_company_verdict, uk_tender_brief, and uk_grant_eligibility by being a preview endpoint with rotating daily content.

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 description explains how to use the tool with different 'wing' query parameters and defaults to company. It mentions it is free and returns the same envelope as paid endpoints, implying it is for testing/preview before spending. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings, the context is clear and actionable.

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

All ukintel.uk — UK company, tender and grant intelligence 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

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct entities (company, tender, grant, funder), but uk_company_verdict subsumes uk_company_profile and uk_company_fca, creating overlap. The clear naming and descriptions help agents differentiate, though the relationship between these three tools could cause misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent uk_{domain}_{action} pattern (uk_company_search, uk_grants_match, uk_tenders_fit_score). The prefix 'uk_' plus a clear resource (company/tender/grant/funder) and a verb makes naming predictably parseable for an agent.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose of providing UK business, tender, and grant intelligence. Each tool serves a clear function without redundancy, and the count allows comprehensive coverage without overwhelming complexity.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for companies (search, profile, FCA check, verdict), tenders (search, brief, fit score), and grants (search, match, eligibility, funder dossier). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to compare multiple companies side-by-side or track a specific tender post-award, but core workflows are well-served.

Resources

Need Help?